Results for “Climatic water deficit: VARIABLE:NONE”

DOE OSTI2025

Data from: 'Abiotic influences on continuous conifer forest structure across a subalpine watershed'

This package archives the core data used for analysis and inference in 'Abiotic influences on continuous conifer forest structure across a subalpine watershed' (Worsham et al., 2025). All data were collected in the East River, Washington Gulch, Slate River, and Coal Creek watersheds of Colorado. In the paper, we quantified the relative influence of climate, topographic, edaphic, and geologic factors on conifer stand structure and composition, and their functional relationships, at the watershed scale. We used waveform LiDAR data to derive spatially continuous stand structure metrics. We fused these with a species-level classification map to estimate tree species abundance. We applied generalized additive and generalized boosted models to evaluate the covariability of structural and compositional metrics with abiotic variables. The package contains the essential products required for reproducing our analysis and the tables and figures reported in the publication. The products comprise four classes: (1) geospatial data, (2) tabular data used for inferential analysis, (3) tabular data describing analytical results and performance statistics, and (4) a data user guide. (1) includes discretized waveform LiDAR data, locations and attributes of individual tree crowns, sampling locations and domain boundaries, a canopy height model, and raster files of estimated forest structural and compositional metrics at 100 m grid scale. (2) includes all response and explanatory variable values applied in inferential models. Response variables include conifer forest stand density, basal area, 95th percentile height, quadratic mean diameter, and others. Explanatory variables include climatic water deficit, actual evapotranspiration, elevation, heat load, soil available water content, and others. (3) includes results of training and testing several individual tree detection (ITD) algorithms, as well as inferential modeling results. (4) is a PDF user guide for this data package, including detailed descriptions and data dictionaries for all files. The data package root contains 17 assets: 8 compressed tape archive (.tar.gz) files, 5 comma-separated values (.csv) files, 3 Geographic Tagged Image File Format (GeoTIFF) (.tif) files, and 1 Portable Document Format (.pdf) file. The compressed .tar.gz archives contain ESRI shapefiles (.shp) .tif, compressed LASer (.laz), and .csv files. The archives must first be decompressed using the widely distributed command-line software utility TAR. All other files, including constituent files within the .tar.gz archives, can be opened in the open-source R statistical computing environment. Alternatively, .csv files may also be read in any simple text editor software or Microsoft Excel. Geospatial files including .shp and .tif files can also be opened in GIS software, such as QGIS (open-source) or ESRI ArcGIS (proprietary). The .pdf Data User Guide can be read with Adobe Acrobat Reader or other compatible readers.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

DOE OSTI2021

Environment-sensitivity functions for gross primary productivity in light use efficiency models

The sensitivity of photosynthesis to environmental changes is essential for understanding carbon cycle responses to global climate change and for the development of modeling approaches that explains its spatial and temporal variability. We collected a large variety of published sensitivity functions of gross primary productivity (GPP) to different forcing variables to assess the response of GPP to environmental factors. These include the responses of GPP to temperature; vapor pressure deficit, some of which include the response to atmospheric CO 2 concentrations; soil water availability (W); light intensity; and cloudiness. These functions were combined in a full factorial light use efficiency (LUE) model structure, leading to a collection of 5600 distinct LUE models. Each model was optimized against daily GPP and evapotranspiration fluxes from 196 FLUXNET sites and ranked across sites based on a bootstrap approach. The GPP sensitivity to each environmental factor, including CO 2 fertilization, was shown to be significant, and that none of the previously published model structures performed as well as the best model selected. From daily and weekly to monthly scales, the best model's median Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency across sites was 0.73, 0.79 and 0.82, respectively, but poorer at annual scales (0.23), emphasizing the common limitation of current models in describing the interannual variability of GPP. Although the best global model did not match the local best model at each site, the selection was robust across ecosystem types. The contribution of light saturation and cloudiness to GPP was observed across all biomes (from 23% to 43%). Temperature and W dominates GPP and LUE but responses of GPP to temperature and W are lagged in cold and arid ecosystems, respectively. The findings of this study provide a foundation towards more robust LUE-based estimates of global GPP and may provide a benchmark for other empirical GPP products.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗