Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:53:14.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Monitoring Radiation, Energy, and Moisture Balance via Remote Sensing and Modeling with Land Surface Models

from Part I - Controls of Microclimate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2016

Roger G. Barry
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
Peter D. Blanken
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
Get access

Summary

The previous discussion has focused on the measurement of components of the radiation and energy balances at a small scale, such as a field. However, these data do not provide a basis for scaling up to large geographical areas such as watersheds or biomes, or globally. Over the last three decades this problem has increasingly been addressed by the application of multispectral remote sensing techniques. Here, we describe these approaches. This is followed by discussion of land surface models leading on to the topic of downscaling model outputs to small-scale conditions.

Microclimatic models have evolved over the last 20–30 years from empirical, statistical correlation-based approaches to physical models that are incorporated into landscape models and urban structure models. Here we briefly introduce the principal empirical and physical models that are in use.

Approaches

Microclimatic research was for most of its history carried out at a few sites for limited time intervals. However, the scaling up of results from field studies has become a focus of attention in the last two to three decades. This has been made possible by the application of high-resolution remote sensing data and by numerical modeling.

Courault et al. (2005) identify three general categories of approach that incorporate remote sensing data: (i) direct empirical methods, (ii) combined empirical and physically based methods, and (iii) soil-vegetation-atmosphere-transfer (SVAT) schemes.

Empirical Direct Methods

One of the most basic approaches is the remote sensing of leaf area index (LAI). It is defined as the one-sided green leaf area per unit ground surface area (square meters per square meter) in broadleaf canopies, while in conifer canopies, three different definitions for LAI have been used: half of the total needle surface area per unit ground surface area, projected (or one-sided) needle area per unit ground area, and total needle surface area per unit ground area. LAI ranges from 0 over bare ground to more than 10 for dense conifer forests. LAI is a significant indicator of energy and mass exchange by plant canopies and is useful to scale from the leaf to canopy-level measurements. Its importance was recognized by the National Research Council (1986, p. 102) as “the key to studying vegetation biomass and productivity from space.”

One of the first studies of LAI via remote sensing was that of Curran (1983).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asner, G. P., Scurlock, J. M., and Hicke, J. E. 2003. Global synthesis of leaf area index observations: implications for ecological and remote sensing studies. Global Ecol. Biogeog. 12, 191–205.Google Scholar
Bateni, S. M. et al. 2014. Coupled estimation of surface heat fluxes and vegetation dynamics from remotely sensed land surface temperature and fraction of photosynthetically active radiation. Water Resour. Res. 50(11), 8420–40.Google Scholar
Bates, C. G. 1911. Windbreaks, their influence and value. Forest Service Bulletin, 86. Washington, DC:U.,S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Best, M. J, et al. 2011. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description. Part 1. Energy and water fluxes. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 677–99.Google Scholar
Blanken, P. D. 2009. Designing a living snow fence for snow drift control. Arctic, Antarct., Alp. Res. 41(4), 418–25.Google Scholar
Blanken, P. D., and Black, T. A. 2004. The canopy conductance of a boreal aspen forest, Prince Albert National Park, Canada. Hydrol. Process. 18(9), 1561–78.Google Scholar
Blanken, P. D., and Rouse, W. R. 1995. Modelling evaporation from a high subarctic willow-birch forest. Int. J. Climatol. 15(1), 99–106.Google Scholar
Brenner, A. J., Jarvis, P. G., and van den Beldt, R. J. 1995. Windbreak-crop interactions in the Sahel. 2. Growth response of millet in shelter. Agric. For. Met. 75, 235–62.Google Scholar
Budyko, M. 1956. The heat balance of the earth's surface. Washington, DC: U.S. Weather Bureau.
Caborn, J. M. 1957. Shelterbelts and microclimate. Forestry Commission, Bulletin No. 29. Edinburgh: HMSO.
Caborn, J. M. 1965. Shelterbelts and windbreaks. London: Faber & Faber. 288 pp.
Cai, D-L. et al. 2014: Climate and vegetation: An ERA-Interim and GIMMS NDVI analysis. J. Climate 27, 5111–18.Google Scholar
Cleugh, H. A. 1998. Effects of windbreaks on airflow, microclimates and crop yields. Agrofor. Systems 41, 55–84.Google Scholar
Collatz, G. J., Ball, J. T., Grivet, C., and Berry, J. A. 1991. Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis, and transpiration: A model that includes a laminar boundary layer. Agric. For. Meteor. 54, 107–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courault, D., Seguin, B., and Olioso, A. 2005. Review on estimation of evapotranspiration from remote sensing data: from empirical to numerical modeling approaches. Irrigation Drainage Systems 19, 223–49.Google Scholar
Curran, P. J. 1983. Multispectral remote sensing for the estimation of green leaf area index. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, A 309, 257–70.Google Scholar
Daly, C. et al. 2002. A knowledge-based approach to the statistical mapping of climate. Clim. Res. 22, 99–113.Google Scholar
Daly, C. et al. 2008. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int. J. Climatol. 28, 2031–64.Google Scholar
ENVI-met: www.envi-met.com/.
Fisher, J.B., Tu, K.P. and Baldocchi, D.D. 2008. Global estimates of the land–atmosphere water flux based on monthly AVHRR and ISLSCP-II data, validated at 16 FLUXNET sites. Rem. Sens. Environ., 112, 90119.
Flerchinger, G. N. 2000. The Simultaneous Heat and Water (SHAW) model: Technical documentation. Tech. Rep. NWRC 2000–09. Boise, ID: Northwest Watershed Research Center, USDA, Agricultural Research Service.
Flerchinger, G. N., and Saxton, K. E. 1989. Simultaneous heat and water model of a freezing snow-residue-soil system I. Theory and development. Trans. ASAE 32(2), 565–71.Google Scholar
Gloyne, R. W. 1956. Some effects of shelterbelts upon local and micro-climate. Forestry 27, 85–95.Google Scholar
Hewitson, B. C. and Crane, R. G. 1996. Climate downscaling: Techniques and application. Clim. Res. 7, 85–95.Google Scholar
Huang, N., Gu, L., and Niu, Z. 2014. Estimating soil respiration using spatial data products: A case study in a deciduous broadleaf forest in the Midwest USA. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 119. doi:10.1002/2013JD020515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungerford, R. D. et al. 1989. MTCLIM: A mountain microclimate simulation model. Ogden, UT: Inter Mountain Research Station, Res. Pap. INT 414. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Huttner, S., and Bruse, M. 2009. Numerical modeling of the urban climate – a preview on ENVI-met 4.0. Seventh International Conference on Urban Climate, 29 June – 3 July 2009, Yokohama, Japan.
Janjic, Z. et al. 2014. WRF-NMM Version 3 Modeling System User's Guide, April 2014.
Jarvis, P. G. (1976) The interpretation of the variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the field. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 273, 593–610.Google Scholar
Judd, M. J. et al. 1996. A wind tunnel study of turbulent flow around single and multiple windbreaks. Part 1. Velocity fields. Boundary-layer Met. 80, 127–65.Google Scholar
Kearney, M. R. et al. 2014a. Microclimate modelling at macro scales: A test of a general microclimate model integrated with gridded continental-scale soil and weather data. Methods Ecol. Evolution 5, 273–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, M. R. 2014b, Microclim: Global estimates of microclimate based on long-term monthly climate averages. www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/sdata.2014.6.
Lagouarde, J-P. 1991. Use of NOAA-AVHRR data combined with an agrometeorological model for evaporation mapping. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 12, 1853–64.Google Scholar
Mu, Q-Zh., Zhao, M-Sh., and Running, S. W. 2011. Improvements to a MODIS global terrestrial evapotranspiration algorithm. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 1781–1800.Google Scholar
Mu, Q-Zh. et al. 2009. Satellite assessment of land surface evapotranspiration for the pan-Arctic domain. Water Resour. Res. 45, W09420.Google Scholar
Nagler, P. et al. 2005. Evapotranspiration on western U.S. rivers estimated using the Enhanced Vegetation Index from MODIS and data from eddy covariance and Bowen ratio flux towers. Remote Sens. Environ. 95, 337–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 1986. Remote sensing of the biosphere.Washington, DC: National Research Council, Committee on Planetary Biology.
Oleson, K. W., and Lawrence, D. M. 2013. Technical Description of version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM). NCAR Technical Note, NCAR/TN-503+STR.
Oyler, J. W. et al. 2015. Creating a topoclimatic daily air temperature dataset for the conterminous United States using homogenized station data and remotely sensed land skin temperature. Int. J. Climatol. 35, 2258–79.Google Scholar
Pitman, A. 2003. The evolution of, and revolution in, land surface schemes designed for climate models. Int. J. Climatol. 23, 479–510.Google Scholar
Raupach, M. R., and. Finnigan, J. J. 1988. Single-layer models of evaporation from plant canopies are incorrect but useful, whereas multilayer models are correct but useless: Discuss. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15, 705–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Running, S.W., Nemani, R.R. and Hungerford, R.R. 1987. Extrapolation of synoptic meteorological data in mountainous terrain and its use for simulating forest evapotranspiration and photosynthesis. Can. J. For. Res., 17, 472–83.
Sellers, P. J., Randall, D. A., Collatz, G. J., Berry, J. A., Field, C. B., Dazlich, D. A., Zhang, C., Collelo, G. D., and Bounoua, L. 1996. A revised land surface parameterization (SiB2) for atmospheric GCMs. Part I. Model formulation. J. Climate 9, 676–705.Google Scholar
Shi, Y., and Song, L. 2015. Spatial downscaling of monthly TRMM precipitation based on EVI and other geospatial variables over the Tibetan Plateau from 2001 to 2012. Mountain Res. Devel. 35, 180–94.Google Scholar
Tabler, R. D. 2002. Design Guidelines for the Control of Blowing and Drifting Snow. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 20–7(147). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Tesemma, Z. K. et al. 2014. Leaf area index variation for crop, pasture, and tree in response to climatic variation in the Goulburn–Broken catchment, Australia. J. Hydromet. 15, 1592–1606. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-13-0108.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessema, Z. K. et al. 2014. Effect of year-to-year variability of leaf area index on variable infiltration capacity model performance and simulation of streamflow during droughtHydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 11, 10, 515–552.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. E., Running, S. W., and White, M. A. 1997. Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain. J. Hydrol. 190, 214–51.Google Scholar
Verger, A. et al. 2015. GEOCLIM: A global climatology of LAI, FAPAR, and FCOVER from VEGETATION observations for 1999–2010. Remote Sens. Environ. 177, 126–37.Google Scholar
Viterbo, P., and Beljaars, C. M. 1995. An improved land surface parameterization scheme in the ECMWF model and its validation. J. Climate 8, 2716–48.Google Scholar
Wang, H., and Takle, E. S. 1995. A numerical simulation of boundary-layer flows near shelterbelts. Boundary Layer Met. 75, 141–73.Google Scholar
Wang, H., Takle, E. S., and Shen, J. 2001: Shelterbelts and windbreaks: Mathematical modeling and computer simulation of turbulent flows. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 33, 549–86.Google Scholar
Winkler, J., Guentchev, G.S., Perdinan, Tan, P., Zhong, S., Liszewski, M., Abraham, Z., Niedźwiedź, T. and Ustrnul, Z. 2011. Climate scenario development and applications for local/regional climate change pmpact assessments: An overview for the non-climate scientist. Geog. Compass, 5, 275-300.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×