Time series of wetland methane fluxes measured by eddy covariance require gap-filling to estimate daily, sea- sonal, and annual emissions. Gap-filling methane fluxes is challenging because of high variability and complex responses to multiple drivers. To date, there is no widely established gap-filling standard for wetland methane fluxes, with regards both to the best model algorithms and predictors. This study synthesizes results of different gap-filling methods systematically applied at 17 wetland sites spanning boreal to tropical regions and including all major wetland classes and two rice paddies. Procedures are proposed for: 1) creating realistic artificial gap scenarios, 2) training and evaluating gap-filling models without overstating performance, and 3) predicting half- hourly methane fluxes and annual emissions with realistic uncertainty estimates. Performance is compared be- tween a conventional method (marginal distribution sampling) and four machine learning algorithms. The conventional method achieved similar median performance as the machine learning models but was worse than the best machine learning models and relatively insensitive to predictor choices. Of the machine learning models, decision tree algorithms performed the best in cross-validation experiments, even with a baseline predictor set, and artificial neural networks showed comparable performance when using all predictors. Soil temperature was frequently the most important predictor whilst water table depth was important at sites with substantial water table fluctuations, highlighting the value of data on wetland soil conditions. Raw gap-filling uncertainties from the machine learning models were underestimated and we propose a method to calibrate uncertainties to ob- servations. The python code for model development, evaluation, and uncertainty estimation is publicly available. This study outlines a modular and robust machine learning workflow and makes recommendations for, and evaluates an improved baseline of, methane gap-filling models that can be implemented in multi-site syntheses or standardized products from regional and global flux networks (e.g., FLUXNET).

Gap-filling eddy covariance methane fluxes: Comparison of machine learning model predictions and uncertainties at FLUXNET-CH4 wetlands / Irvin, J.; Zhou, S.; Mcnicol, G.; Lu, F.; Liu, V.; Fluet-Chouinard, E.; Ouyang, Z.; Knox, Sh.; Lucas-Moffat, A.; Trotta, C.; Papale, D.; Vitale, D.; And, Others. - In: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY. - ISSN 0168-1923. - (2021). [10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108528]

Gap-filling eddy covariance methane fluxes: Comparison of machine learning model predictions and uncertainties at FLUXNET-CH4 wetlands

Vitale D.;
2021

Abstract

Time series of wetland methane fluxes measured by eddy covariance require gap-filling to estimate daily, sea- sonal, and annual emissions. Gap-filling methane fluxes is challenging because of high variability and complex responses to multiple drivers. To date, there is no widely established gap-filling standard for wetland methane fluxes, with regards both to the best model algorithms and predictors. This study synthesizes results of different gap-filling methods systematically applied at 17 wetland sites spanning boreal to tropical regions and including all major wetland classes and two rice paddies. Procedures are proposed for: 1) creating realistic artificial gap scenarios, 2) training and evaluating gap-filling models without overstating performance, and 3) predicting half- hourly methane fluxes and annual emissions with realistic uncertainty estimates. Performance is compared be- tween a conventional method (marginal distribution sampling) and four machine learning algorithms. The conventional method achieved similar median performance as the machine learning models but was worse than the best machine learning models and relatively insensitive to predictor choices. Of the machine learning models, decision tree algorithms performed the best in cross-validation experiments, even with a baseline predictor set, and artificial neural networks showed comparable performance when using all predictors. Soil temperature was frequently the most important predictor whilst water table depth was important at sites with substantial water table fluctuations, highlighting the value of data on wetland soil conditions. Raw gap-filling uncertainties from the machine learning models were underestimated and we propose a method to calibrate uncertainties to ob- servations. The python code for model development, evaluation, and uncertainty estimation is publicly available. This study outlines a modular and robust machine learning workflow and makes recommendations for, and evaluates an improved baseline of, methane gap-filling models that can be implemented in multi-site syntheses or standardized products from regional and global flux networks (e.g., FLUXNET).
2021
machine learning; time series; imputation; gap-filling; methane flux; wetlands
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Gap-filling eddy covariance methane fluxes: Comparison of machine learning model predictions and uncertainties at FLUXNET-CH4 wetlands / Irvin, J.; Zhou, S.; Mcnicol, G.; Lu, F.; Liu, V.; Fluet-Chouinard, E.; Ouyang, Z.; Knox, Sh.; Lucas-Moffat, A.; Trotta, C.; Papale, D.; Vitale, D.; And, Others. - In: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY. - ISSN 0168-1923. - (2021). [10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108528]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Vitale_Agricultural_2021.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 7.38 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
7.38 MB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1665166
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 38
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 37
social impact