Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorJunttila, Sofia
dc.contributor.authorArdö, Jonas
dc.contributor.authorCai, Zhanzhang
dc.contributor.authorJin, Hongxiao
dc.contributor.authorKljun, Natascha
dc.contributor.authorKlemedtsson, Leif
dc.contributor.authorKrasnova, Alisa
dc.contributor.authorLange, Holger
dc.contributor.authorLindroth, Anders
dc.contributor.authorMölder, Meelis
dc.contributor.authorNoe, Steffen M.
dc.contributor.authorTagesson, Torbern
dc.contributor.authorVestin, Patrik
dc.contributor.authorWeslien, Per
dc.contributor.authorEklundh, Lars
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-27T11:32:18Z
dc.date.available2023-09-27T11:32:18Z
dc.date.created2023-01-02T15:04:09Z
dc.date.issued2023-01-03
dc.identifier.citationScience of Remote Sensing. 2023, 7 1-14.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2666-0172
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3092377
dc.description.abstractNorthern forest ecosystems make up an important part of the global carbon cycle. Hence, monitoring local-scale gross primary production (GPP) of Northern forest is essential for understanding climatic change impacts on terrestrial carbon sequestration and for assessing and planning management practices. Here we evaluate and compare four methods for estimating GPP using Sentinel-2 data in order to improve current available GPP estimates: four empirical regression models based on either the 2-band Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI2) or the plant phenology index (PPI), an asymptotic light response function (LRF) model, and a light-use efficiency (LUE) model using the MOD1732 algorithm. These approaches were based on remote sensing vegetation indices, air temperature (Tair), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). The models were parametrized and evaluated using in-situ data from eleven forest sites in North Europe, covering two common forest types, evergreen needleleaf forest and deciduous broadleaf forest. Most of the models gave good agreement with eddy covariance-derived GPP. The VI-based regression models performed well in evergreen needleleaf forest (R2 = 0.69–0.78, RMSE = 1.97–2.28 g C m−2 d−1, and NRMSE =9-11.0%, eight sites), whereas the LRF and MOD17 performed slightly worse (R2 = 0.65 and 0.57, RMSE = 2.49 and 2.72 g C m−2 d−1, NRMSE = 12 and 13.0%, respectively). In deciduous broadleaf forest all models, except the LRF, showed close agreements with the observed GPP (R2 = 0.75–0.80, RMSE = 2.23–2.46 g C m−2 d−1, NRMSE = 11–12%, three sites). For the LRF model, R2 = 0.57, RMSE = 3.21 g C m−2 d−1, NRMSE = 16%. The results highlighted the necessity of improved models in evergreen needleleaf forest where the LUE approach gave poorer results., The simplest regression model using only PPI performed well beside more complex models, suggesting PPI to be a process indicator directly linked with GPP. All models were able to capture the seasonal dynamics of GPP well, but underestimation of the growing season peaks were a common issue. The LRF was the only model tending to overestimate GPP. Estimation of interannual variability in cumulative GPP was less accurate than the single-year models and will need further development. In general, all models performed well on local scale and demonstrated their feasibility for upscaling GPP in northern forest ecosystems using Sentinel-2 data.en_US
dc.description.abstractEstimating local-scale forest GPP in Northern Europe using Sentinel-2: Model comparisons with LUE, APAR, the plant phenology index, and a light response functionen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.en_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectVertikal karbonfluksen_US
dc.subjectVertical carbon fluxen_US
dc.subjectFjernmålingen_US
dc.subjectRemote sensingen_US
dc.subjectPrimærproduksjonen_US
dc.subjectPrimærproduksjonen_US
dc.titleEstimating local-scale forest GPP in Northern Europe using Sentinel-2: Model comparisons with LUE, APAR, the plant phenology index, and a light response functionen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2023 The Authorsen_US
dc.source.pagenumber1-14en_US
dc.source.volume7en_US
dc.source.journalScience of Remote Sensingen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.srs.2022.100075
dc.identifier.cristin2098992
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 245927en_US
dc.source.articlenumber100075en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal