Gap-filling methods to impute eddy covariance flux data by preserving variance.

Abstract:

To represent carbon dynamics, in terms of exchange of CO₂ between the terrestrial ecosystem and the atmosphere, eddy covariance (EC) data has been collected using eddy flux towers from various sites across globe for more than two decades. However, measurements from EC data are missing for various reasons: precipitation, routine maintenance, or lack of vertical turbulence. In order to have estimates of net ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide (NEE) with high precision and accuracy, robust gap-filling methods to impute missing data are required. While the methods used so far have provided robust estimates of the mean value of NEE, little attention has been paid to preserving the variance structures embodied by the flux data. Preserving the variance of these data will provide unbiased and precise estimates of NEE over time, which mimic natural fluctuations.

We used a non-linear regression approach with moving windows of different lengths (15, 30, and 60-days) to estimate non-linear regression parameters for one year of flux data from a long-leaf pine site at the Joseph Jones Ecological Research Center. We used as our base the Michaelis-Menten and Van’t Hoff functions. We assessed the potential physiological drivers of these parameters with linear models using micrometeorological predictors. We then used a parameter prediction approach to refine the non-linear gap-filling equations based on micrometeorological conditions. This provides us an opportunity to incorporate additional variables, such as vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and volumetric water content (VWC) into the equations. Our preliminary results indicate that improvements in gap-filling can be gained with a 30-day moving window with additional micrometeorological predictors (as indicated by lower root mean square error (RMSE) of the predicted values of NEE). Our next steps are to use these parameter predictions from moving windows to gap-fill the data with and without incorporation of potential driver variables of the parameters traditionally used. Then, comparisons of the predicted values from these methods and ‘traditional’ gap-filling methods (using 12 fixed monthly windows) will be assessed to show the scale of preserving variance. Further, this method will be applied to impute artificially created gaps for analyzing if variance is preserved.