Interpreting eddy covariance data from heterogeneous Siberian tundra: Land-cover-specific methane fluxes and spatial representativeness

The non-uniform spatial integration, an inherent feature of the eddy covariance (EC) method, creates a challenge for flux data interpretation in a heterogeneous environment, where the contribution of different land cover types varies with flow conditions, potentially resulting in biased estimates in...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biogeosciences
Main Authors: Tuovinen, Juha Pekka, Aurela, Mika, Hatakka, Juha, Räsänen, Tuomas Aleksi, Virtanen, Tarmo, Mikola, Juha, Ivakhov, Viktor, Kondratyev, Vladimir, Laurila, Tuomas
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: European Geosciences Union 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2640567
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-255-2019
id ftntnutrondheimi:oai:ntnuopen.ntnu.no:11250/2640567
record_format openpolar
spelling ftntnutrondheimi:oai:ntnuopen.ntnu.no:11250/2640567 2023-05-15T18:33:05+02:00 Interpreting eddy covariance data from heterogeneous Siberian tundra: Land-cover-specific methane fluxes and spatial representativeness Tuovinen, Juha Pekka Aurela, Mika Hatakka, Juha Räsänen, Tuomas Aleksi Virtanen, Tarmo Mikola, Juha Ivakhov, Viktor Kondratyev, Vladimir Laurila, Tuomas 2019 http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2640567 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-255-2019 eng eng European Geosciences Union Biogeosciences. 2019, 16 (2), 255-274. urn:issn:1726-4170 http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2640567 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-255-2019 cristin:1727134 Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no CC-BY 255-274 16 Biogeosciences 2 Journal article Peer reviewed 2019 ftntnutrondheimi https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-255-2019 2020-02-12T23:32:27Z The non-uniform spatial integration, an inherent feature of the eddy covariance (EC) method, creates a challenge for flux data interpretation in a heterogeneous environment, where the contribution of different land cover types varies with flow conditions, potentially resulting in biased estimates in comparison to the areally averaged fluxes and land cover attributes. We modelled flux footprints and characterized the spatial scale of our EC measurements in Tiksi, a tundra site in northern Siberia. We used leaf area index (LAI) and land cover class (LCC) data, derived from very-high-spatial-resolution satellite imagery and field surveys, and quantified the sensor location bias. We found that methane (CH4) fluxes varied strongly with wind direction (−0.09 to 0.59 µgCH4m−2s−1 on average) during summer 2014, reflecting the distribution of different LCCs. Other environmental factors had only a minor effect on short-term flux variations but influenced the seasonal trend. Using footprint weights of grouped LCCs as explanatory variables for the measured CH4 flux, we developed a multiple regression model to estimate LCC group-specific fluxes. This model showed that wet fen and graminoid tundra patches in locations with topography-enhanced wetness acted as strong sources (1.0 µgCH4m−2s−1 during the peak emission period), while mineral soils were significant sinks (−0.13 µgCH4m−2s−1). To assess the representativeness of measurements, we upscaled the LCC group-specific fluxes to different spatial scales. Despite the landscape heterogeneity and rather poor representativeness of EC data with respect to the areally averaged LAI and coverage of some LCCs, the mean flux was close to the CH4 balance upscaled to an area of 6.3 km2, with a location bias of 14 %. We recommend that EC site descriptions in a heterogeneous environment should be complemented with footprint-weighted high-resolution data on vegetation and other site characteristics. publishedVersion © Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Article in Journal/Newspaper Tiksi Tundra Siberia NTNU Open Archive (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) Tiksi ENVELOPE(128.867,128.867,71.633,71.633) Biogeosciences 16 2 255 274
institution Open Polar
collection NTNU Open Archive (Norwegian University of Science and Technology)
op_collection_id ftntnutrondheimi
language English
description The non-uniform spatial integration, an inherent feature of the eddy covariance (EC) method, creates a challenge for flux data interpretation in a heterogeneous environment, where the contribution of different land cover types varies with flow conditions, potentially resulting in biased estimates in comparison to the areally averaged fluxes and land cover attributes. We modelled flux footprints and characterized the spatial scale of our EC measurements in Tiksi, a tundra site in northern Siberia. We used leaf area index (LAI) and land cover class (LCC) data, derived from very-high-spatial-resolution satellite imagery and field surveys, and quantified the sensor location bias. We found that methane (CH4) fluxes varied strongly with wind direction (−0.09 to 0.59 µgCH4m−2s−1 on average) during summer 2014, reflecting the distribution of different LCCs. Other environmental factors had only a minor effect on short-term flux variations but influenced the seasonal trend. Using footprint weights of grouped LCCs as explanatory variables for the measured CH4 flux, we developed a multiple regression model to estimate LCC group-specific fluxes. This model showed that wet fen and graminoid tundra patches in locations with topography-enhanced wetness acted as strong sources (1.0 µgCH4m−2s−1 during the peak emission period), while mineral soils were significant sinks (−0.13 µgCH4m−2s−1). To assess the representativeness of measurements, we upscaled the LCC group-specific fluxes to different spatial scales. Despite the landscape heterogeneity and rather poor representativeness of EC data with respect to the areally averaged LAI and coverage of some LCCs, the mean flux was close to the CH4 balance upscaled to an area of 6.3 km2, with a location bias of 14 %. We recommend that EC site descriptions in a heterogeneous environment should be complemented with footprint-weighted high-resolution data on vegetation and other site characteristics. publishedVersion © Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Tuovinen, Juha Pekka
Aurela, Mika
Hatakka, Juha
Räsänen, Tuomas Aleksi
Virtanen, Tarmo
Mikola, Juha
Ivakhov, Viktor
Kondratyev, Vladimir
Laurila, Tuomas
spellingShingle Tuovinen, Juha Pekka
Aurela, Mika
Hatakka, Juha
Räsänen, Tuomas Aleksi
Virtanen, Tarmo
Mikola, Juha
Ivakhov, Viktor
Kondratyev, Vladimir
Laurila, Tuomas
Interpreting eddy covariance data from heterogeneous Siberian tundra: Land-cover-specific methane fluxes and spatial representativeness
author_facet Tuovinen, Juha Pekka
Aurela, Mika
Hatakka, Juha
Räsänen, Tuomas Aleksi
Virtanen, Tarmo
Mikola, Juha
Ivakhov, Viktor
Kondratyev, Vladimir
Laurila, Tuomas
author_sort Tuovinen, Juha Pekka
title Interpreting eddy covariance data from heterogeneous Siberian tundra: Land-cover-specific methane fluxes and spatial representativeness
title_short Interpreting eddy covariance data from heterogeneous Siberian tundra: Land-cover-specific methane fluxes and spatial representativeness
title_full Interpreting eddy covariance data from heterogeneous Siberian tundra: Land-cover-specific methane fluxes and spatial representativeness
title_fullStr Interpreting eddy covariance data from heterogeneous Siberian tundra: Land-cover-specific methane fluxes and spatial representativeness
title_full_unstemmed Interpreting eddy covariance data from heterogeneous Siberian tundra: Land-cover-specific methane fluxes and spatial representativeness
title_sort interpreting eddy covariance data from heterogeneous siberian tundra: land-cover-specific methane fluxes and spatial representativeness
publisher European Geosciences Union
publishDate 2019
url http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2640567
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-255-2019
long_lat ENVELOPE(128.867,128.867,71.633,71.633)
geographic Tiksi
geographic_facet Tiksi
genre Tiksi
Tundra
Siberia
genre_facet Tiksi
Tundra
Siberia
op_source 255-274
16
Biogeosciences
2
op_relation Biogeosciences. 2019, 16 (2), 255-274.
urn:issn:1726-4170
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2640567
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-255-2019
cristin:1727134
op_rights Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no
op_rightsnorm CC-BY
op_doi https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-255-2019
container_title Biogeosciences
container_volume 16
container_issue 2
container_start_page 255
op_container_end_page 274
_version_ 1766217413027692544