日本地球惑星科学連合2023年大会

講演情報

[E] オンラインポスター発表

セッション記号 A (大気水圏科学) » A-CG 大気海洋・環境科学複合領域・一般

[A-CG35] グローバル炭素循環の観測と解析

2023年5月26日(金) 09:00 〜 10:30 オンラインポスターZoom会場 (1) (オンラインポスター)

コンビーナ:市井 和仁(千葉大学)、Patra Prabir(Research Institute for Global Change, JAMSTEC)、伊藤 昭彦(国立環境研究所)

現地ポスター発表開催日時 (2023/5/25 17:15-18:45)

09:00 〜 10:30

[ACG35-P04] Assessment of a process-based terrestrial carbon cycle model, VISIT, using multiple data-driven estimations

*王 汝慈1市井 和仁1Patra Prabir2Naveen Chandra2 (1.千葉大学環境リモートセンシング研究センター、2.国立研究開発法人海洋研究開発機構)

キーワード:Terrestrial carbon cycle、Remote sensing、Top-down estimation、Bottom-up estimation、VISIT model

Terrestrial carbon cycle is one of the most uncertain components in global carbon cycle. Therefore, evaluation and refinement of terrestrial carbon cycle models using multiple observation data are necessary. In this study, we employed a terrestrial carbon cycle model, VISIT, which simulates the carbon, water, and nutrient cycles of terrestrial ecosystems, including vegetation and soil, and assessed the fluxes of greenhouse gases between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems. The data-driven estimation of terrestrial carbon cycles include machine-learning based gross primary production (GPP) and net ecosystem production (NEP), atmospheric inversion based atmosphere-land carbon exchanges, satellite data based leaf area index (LAI) and biomass, and inventory-based soil carbon. We evaluated model outputs with these data-driven estimates for both global scale and sub-continental scale (e.g. 11 zones). The findings demonstrate that there is a strong consistency in the monthly changes between the VISIT model and machine-learning based GPP from 2001 to 2011, particularly in Russia, Europe, and South Asia. We will show evaluation results of VISIT model outputs with more data-driven products. This study provide a baseline of the current model evaluation, and we will discuss the way of model-data fusion and assimilation.

However, when comparing VISIT and SVRGLOBAL for long-term outcomes, only South Asia and Europe exhibit comparable GPP outcomes. The most probable reason is that the model structure and hypotheses are uncertain, as well as the parameter certainty brought on by parameter interactions and model over-parameterization.