Moving beyond the incorrect but useful paradigm: reevaluating big-leaf and multilayer plant canopies to model biosphere-atmosphere fluxes – a review

dc.contributor.authorBonan, Gordon
dc.contributor.authorPatton, Edward
dc.contributor.authorFinnigan, John Joseph
dc.contributor.authorBaldocchi, Dennis D
dc.contributor.authorHarman, Ian
dc.date.accessioned2023-04-11T00:17:25Z
dc.date.available2023-04-11T00:17:25Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.date.updated2022-01-23T07:17:52Z
dc.description.abstractThe land surface models that provide surface fluxes of energy and mass to the atmosphere in weather forecast and climate models typically represent plant canopies as a homogenous single layer of phytomass without vertical structure (commonly referred to as a big leaf). This modeling paradigm harkens back to a 30–40-year-old debate about whether big-leaf models adequately simulate fluxes for vegetated surfaces compared to more complex and computationally costly multilayer canopy models. This article revisits that scientific debate. We review the early literature to place our findings in context and discuss recent advancements in roughness sublayer theory, observations of canopy structure and leaf traits, and computational methods that facilitate the use of multilayer models. Using a model with variable vertical resolution, we compare a multilayer canopy representation with the equivalent one-layer canopy to ask how well the one-layer canopy replicates the multilayer benchmark and to identify why differences occur. Comparisons with flux tower measurements at several forest sites spanning multiple years show that sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, gross primary production, and friction velocity for the one-layer canopy degrade in comparison to the benchmark multilayer canopy. For the forest sites considered, 5–10 canopy layers sufficiently reproduce the observed fluxes. Vertical variation of within-canopy air temperature, specific humidity, and wind speed in the multilayer canopy alters fluxes compared with the one-layer canopy. The vertical profile of leaf water potential, in which the upper canopy is water-stressed on dry soils, also causes differences between the one-layer and multilayer canopies. The differences between one-layer and multilayer canopies suggest that the land surface modeling community should revisit the big-leaf surface flux parameterizations used in models.en_AU
dc.description.sponsorshipThis material is based upon work supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is a major facility sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement No. 1852977. GBB acknowledges support from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture/US Department of Agriculture (2015-67003-23485). DDB acknowledges support by the California Experimental Station, McIntire-Stennis fund and by NASA Ecostress and DOE Ameriflux Management projecten_AU
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn0168-1923en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/288201
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.provenanceThis is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)en_AU
dc.publisherElsevieren_AU
dc.rights© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.en_AU
dc.rights.licenseCC BY licenseen_AU
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_AU
dc.sourceAgricultural and Forest Meteorologyen_AU
dc.subjectBiosphere-atmosphere fluxesen_AU
dc.subjectLand surface modelen_AU
dc.subjectBig-leaf modelen_AU
dc.subjectMultilayer canopy modeen_AU
dc.titleMoving beyond the incorrect but useful paradigm: reevaluating big-leaf and multilayer plant canopies to model biosphere-atmosphere fluxes – a reviewen_AU
dc.typeJournal articleen_AU
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Accessen_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage23en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage1en_AU
local.contributor.affiliationBonan, Gordon , National Center for Atmospheric Researchen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationPatton, Edward, National Center for Atmospheric Researchen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationFinnigan, John, College of Science, ANUen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationBaldocchi, Dennis D, University of Californiaen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationHarman, Ian , CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphereen_AU
local.contributor.authoruidFinnigan, John, u1030891en_AU
local.description.notesImported from ARIESen_AU
local.identifier.absfor310806 - Plant physiologyen_AU
local.identifier.absseo280102 - Expanding knowledge in the biological sciencesen_AU
local.identifier.ariespublicationa383154xPUB19667en_AU
local.identifier.citationvolume306en_AU
local.identifier.doi10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108435en_AU
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-85105828533
local.publisher.urlhttps://www.elsevier.com/en-auen_AU
local.type.statusPublished Versionen_AU

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1-s2.0-S0168192321001180-main.pdf
Size:
1.61 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: