MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

10 yrs of Improved Groundwater Table Estimates in Northern Peatlands Through Assimilation of Passive Microwave Observations into PEATCLSM

2020· article· en· W3090749541 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Bechtold, Gabriëlle De Lannoy, Rolf H. Reichle, Dirk Roose, Nicole Balliston, Iuliia Burdun, K. J. Devito, Juliya Kurbatova, Maria Strack, Evgeny A. Zarov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatWater tableGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceData assimilationHydrology (agriculture)Biogeochemical cycleSoil scienceWater contentEnsemble Kalman filterGeologyEcologyKalman filterChemistryMeteorologyEnvironmental chemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Groundwater table depth and peat moisture, exert a first order control on a range of biogeochemical and -physical peatland processes, and the susceptibility to peat fires. Therefore, one of the first critical measures to identify “peatlands under pressure” is the change of hydrological conditions, e.g. due to changing climatic conditions or direct “hydraulic” human influence. In this presentation, we introduce a new opportunity for the global-scale monitoring of moisture conditions in peatlands. We assimilate L-band brightness temperature (Tb) data from the Soil Moisture Ocean Salinity (SMOS) into the Catchment land surface model (CLSM) to improve the simulation of Northern peatland hydrology from 2010 through 2019. We compare four simulation experiments: two open loop and two data assimilation simulations, either using the default CLSM or a recently-developed peatland-specific adaptation of it (PEATCLSM, Bechtold et al. 2019). The assimilation system uses a spatially distributed ensemble Kalman filter to update soil moisture and groundwater table depth. The simulation experiments are evaluated against an in-situ dataset of groundwater table depth in about 20 natural and semi-natural peatlands that are large enough to be dominant in the corresponding 81-km2 model grid cells. For PEATCLSM, Tb data assimilation increases the temporal Pearson correlation (R) and anomaly correlation (aR) between simulated and measured groundwater table from 0.53 and 0.38 (open-loop) to 0.58 and 0.45 (analysis), respectively. Time series comparison at monitoring sites demonstrates how the assimilation effectively corrects for remaining deficiencies in model physics and/or errors of the global meteorological data forcing the model. The generally lower coefficients of 0.30 (R) and 0.09 (aR) for the default CLSM also improve after Tb data assimilation to values of 0.39 (R) and 0.28 (aR). However, even with Tb data assimilation, the skill of CLSM remains inferior to that of PEATCLSM. The more realistic model physics of PEATCLSM are also supported by a reduction of the Tb misfits (observed Tb – forecasted Tb) over 94 % of the Northern peatland area. The temporal variance of Tb misfits is reduced by 20 % on average and is largest over the large peatland areas of the Western Siberian (25 %) and Hudson Bay Lowlands (40 %). This study demonstrates, for the first time, an improved estimation of the peatland hydrological dynamics by the assimilation of SMOS L-band brightness data into a global land surface model and suggests a new route of research focusing on the incorporation of additional satellite observations into peatland-specific modeling schemes. Bechtold, M., De Lannoy, G.J M., Koster, R.D., Reichle, R.H., et al. (2019). PEAT-CLSM: A Specific Treatment of Peatland Hydrology in the NASA Catchment Land Surface Model. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN MODELING EARTH SYSTEMS, 11 (7), 2130-2162. doi: 10.1029/2018MS001574.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→