Published April 2021 | Version v1
Journal article

Assessing the reliability of peatland GPP measurements by remote sensing: From plot to landscape scale

  • 1. Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Streatham Campus, Exeter EX4 4QE (United Kingdom)
  • 2. Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6DW (United Kingdom)
  • 3. University of Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1 (Canada)
  • 4. National Centre for Earth Observation, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6BB (United Kingdom)
  • 5. Forsinard Flows RSPB Office, Forsinard KW13 6YT (United Kingdom)
  • 6. Imperial College London, SW7 2A7 (United Kingdom)
  • 7. The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH (United Kingdom)

Description

Highlights: • Peatlands have heterogeneous microtopography that challenges large-scale monitoring. • Remote sensing has the potential to monitor peatland GPP over large areas. • Flux chambers and eddy covariance were compared to spectrometer and satellite data. • A Temperature and Greenness model correlated with GPP at small and large scales. • Microtopography had minimal influence, model calibration was important. Estimates of peatland carbon fluxes based on remote sensing data are a useful addition to monitoring methods in these remote and precious ecosystems, but there are questions as to whether large-scale estimates are reliable given the small-scale heterogeneity of many peatlands. Our objective was to consider the reliability of models based on Earth Observations for estimating ecosystem photosynthesis at different scales using the Forsinard Flows RSPB reserve in Northern Scotland as our study site. Three sites across the reserve were monitored during the growing season of 2017. One site is near-natural blanket bog, and the other two are at different stages of the restoration process after removal of commercial conifer forestry. At each site we measured small (flux chamber) and landscape scale (eddy covariance) CO2 fluxes, small scale spectral data using a handheld spectrometer, and obtained corresponding satellite data from MODIS. The variables influencing GPP at small scale, including microforms and dominant vegetation species, were assessed using exploratory factor analysis. A GPP model using land surface temperature and a measure of greenness from remote sensing data was tested and compared to chamber and eddy covariance CO2 fluxes; this model returned good results at all scales (Pearson's correlations of 0.57 to 0.71 at small scale, 0.76 to 0.86 at large scale). We found that the effect of microtopography on GPP fluxes at the study sites was spatially and temporally inconsistent, although connected to water content and vegetation species. The GPP fluxes measured using EC were larger than those using chambers at all sites, and the reliability of the TG model at different scales was dependent on the measurement methods used for calibration and validation. This suggests that GPP measurements from remote sensing are robust at all scales, but that the methods used for calibration and validation will impact accuracy.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142613

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142613;
PII
S0048969720361428;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Science of the Total Environment
Journal Volume
766
Journal Page Range
vp.
ISSN
0048-9697
CODEN
STENDL

INIS

Country of Publication
Netherlands
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
54053717
Subject category
S54: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES;
Descriptors DEI
BIOLOGICAL RECOVERY; CALIBRATION; CARBON; CARBON DIOXIDE; CONIFERS; HUMIDITY; PHOTOSYNTHESIS; REMOTE SENSING; SEASONS; SPECTROMETERS
Descriptors DEC
CARBON COMPOUNDS; CARBON OXIDES; CHALCOGENIDES; CHEMICAL REACTIONS; ELEMENTS; MEASURING INSTRUMENTS; MOISTURE; NONMETALS; OXIDES; OXYGEN COMPOUNDS; PHOTOCHEMICAL REACTIONS; PINOPHYTA; PLANTS; SYNTHESIS

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.