Abstract
Terrestrial CO2 flux estimates are obtained from two fundamentally different methods generally termed bottom-up and top-down approaches. Inventory methods are one type of bottom-up approach which uses various sources of information such as crop production surveys and forest monitoring data to estimate the annual CO2 flux at locations covering a study region. Top-down approaches are various types of atmospheric inversion methods which use CO2 concentration measurements from monitoring towers and atmospheric transport models to estimate CO2 flux over a study region. Both methods can also quantify the uncertainty associated with their estimates. Historically, these two approaches have produced estimates that differ considerably. The goal of this work is to construct a statistical model which sensibly combines estimates from the two approaches to produce a new estimate of CO2 flux for our study region. The two approaches have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and our results show that certain aspects of the uncertainty associated with each of the approaches are greatly reduced by combining the methods. Our model is purposefully simple and designed to take the two approaches’ estimates and measures of uncertainty at ‘face value’. Specifically, we use a constrained least-squares approach to appropriately weigh the estimates by the inverse of their variance, and the constraint imposes agreement between the two sources. Our application involves nearly 18,000 flux estimates for the upper midwest United States. The constrained dependencies result in a non-sparse covariance matrix, but computation requires only minutes due to the structure of the model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bocquet M (2008) Inverse modelling of atmospheric tracers: non-Gaussian methods and second-order sensitivity analysis. Nonlinear Process Geophys 15(1): 127–143
Chan E, Lin J (2011) What is the value of agricultural census data in carbon cycle studies?. J Geophys Res 116(G03012): G03012
Chevallier F, Ciais P, Conway TJ, Aalto T, Anderson BE, Bousquet P, Brunke EG, Ciattaglia L, Esaki Y, Fröhlich M et al (2010) CO2 surface fluxes at grid point scale estimated from a global 21 year reanalysis of atmospheric measurements. J Geophys Res 115(D21): D21307
Cressie N (1993) Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, New York
EPA (2011) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2009. Technical report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Furrer R (2008) Spam: SPArse Matrix. R package version 0.14-1
Göckede M, Michalak AM, Vickers D, Turner DP, Law BE (2010) Atmospheric inverse modeling to constrain regional-scale CO2 budgets at high spatial and temporal resolution. J Geophys Res 115:D15113
Gourdji S, Mueller K, Yadav V, Huntzinger D, Andrews A, Trudeau M, Petron G, Nehrkorn T, Eluszkiewicz J, Henderson J et al (2012) North american CO2 exchange: inter-comparison of modeled estimates with results from a fine-scale atmospheric inversion. Biogeosciences 9: 457–475
Graybill F (1976) Theory and application of the linear model. Duxbury, North Scituate, Massachusetts
Gurney KR, Mendoza DL, Zhou Y, Fischer ML, Miller CC, Geethakumar S, de la Ruedu Can S (2009) High resolution fossil fuel combustion CO2 emission fluxes for the United States. Environ Sci Technol 43(14): 5535–5541
IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Kanagawa, Japan.
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Lauvaux T, Pannekoucke O, Sarrat C, Chevallier F, Ciais P, Noilhan J, Rayner PJ (2009) Structure of the transport uncertainty in mesoscale inversions of CO2 sources and sinks using ensemble model simulations. Biogeosciences 6(6): 1089–1102
Lauvaux T, Schuh AE, Uliasz M, Richardson S, Miles N, Andrews AE, Sweeney C, Diaz LI, Martins D, Shepson PB, Davis KJ (2011) Constraining the CO2 budget of the corn belt: exploring uncertainties from the assumptions in a mesoscale inverse system. Atmos Chem Phys 12: 337–354. doi:10.5194/acpd-11-20855-2011
Le Quéré C, Raupach M, Canadell J, Marland G et al (2009) Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nat Geosci 2(12): 831–836
Lokupitiya E, Denning S, Paustian K, Baker I, Schaefer K, Verma S, Meyers T, Bernacchi CJ, Suyker A, Fischer M (2009) Incorporation of crop phenology in simple biosphere model (sibcrop) to improve land-atmosphere carbon exchanges from croplands. Biogeosciences 6: 1103
Ogle S, Breidt F, Easter M, Williams S, Killian K, Paustian K (2010) Scale and uncertainty in modeled soil organic carbon stock changes for US croplands using a process-based model. Glob Chang Biol 16: 810–822
Pacala SW, Hurtt G, Baker D, Peylin P, Houghton R, Heath L, Sundquist RB, Stallard E, Ciais R, Moorcroft P, Caspersen P, Shevliakova J, Moore E, Kohlmaier B, Holland G, Gloor E, Harmon M, Fan M, Sarmiento S, Goodale J, Schimel C, Field DC (2001) Consistent land- and atmosphere-based U.S. carbon sink estimates. Science 292: 2316–2320
Paustian K, Andren O, Janzen HH, Lal R, Smith P, Tian G, Tiessen H, Noordwijk MV, Woomer PL (1997) Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO2 emissions. Soil Use Manag 13: 230–244
Peters W, Jacobson AR, Sweeney C, Andrews AE, Conway TJ, Masarie K, Miller JB, Bruhwiler LMP, Pétron G, Hirsch AI et al (2007) An atmospheric perspective on North American carbon dioxide exchange: carbontracker. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(48): 18925
Schabenberger O, Gotway CA (2005) Statistical methods for spatial data analysis. Texts in statistical science. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton
Schimel D, House JI, Hibbard KA, Bousquet P, Ciais P, Peylin P, Braswell BH, Apps MJ, Baker D, Bondeau A, Canadell J, Churkina G, Cramer W, Denning AS, Field CB, Friedlingstein P, Goodale C, Heimann M, Houghton RA, Melillo JM, Moore B, Murdiyarso D, Noble I, Pacala SW, Prentice IC, Raupach MR, Rayner PJ, Scholes RJ, Steffen WL, Wirth C (2001) Recent patterns and mechanisms of carbon exchange by terrestrial ecosystems. Nature 414: 169–172
Schuh AE, Denning AS, Corbin KD, Baker IT, Uliasz M, Parazoo N, Andrews AE, Worthy DEJ (2010) A regional high-resolution carbon flux inversion of North America for 2004. Biogeosciences 7: 1625–1644
Smith J, Heath L, Nichols M (2007) U.S. forest carbon calculation tool: forestland carbon stocks and net annual stock change. Technical report, US Forest Service, Newtown, Pennsylvania. General Technical Report NRS13. Northern Research Station
Sweeney C, Karion A, Wolter S, Neff D, Higgs JA, Heller M, Guenther D, Miller B, Montzka S, Miller J, Conway T, Dlugokencky E, Novelli P, Masarie K, Oltman S, Tans P (2011) Carbon dioxide climatology of the NOAA/ESRL greenhouse gas aircraft network. J Geophys Res (in prep). 20858, 20868
Tarantola A (2005) Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Society for Industrial Mathematics
Uliasz M (1994) Lagrangian particle dispersion modeling in mesoscale applications. Environ Model 2: 71–101
USDA-NASS (2010) Data and statistics. Technical report, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Washington, DC
West T, Bandaru V, Brandt C, Schuh A, Ogle S (2011) Regional uptake and release of crop carbon in the United States. Biogeosciences 8: 631–654
West T, Singh N, Marland G, Bhaduri B, Roddy A (2009) The human carbon budget: an estimate of the spatial distribution of metabolic carbon consumption and release in the United States. Biogeochemistry 94: 29–41
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cooley, D., Breidt, F.J., Ogle, S.M. et al. A constrained least-squares approach to combine bottom-up and top-down CO2 flux estimates. Environ Ecol Stat 20, 129–146 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-012-0211-6
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-012-0211-6