Improving MODIS Gross Primary Productivity by Bridging Big‐Leaf and Two‐Leaf Light Use Efficiency Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gross primary productivity (GPP) is an important component of the terrestrial carbon cycle in climate change research. The global GPP product derived using Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data is perhaps the most widely used. Unfortunately, many studies have indicated evident error patterns in the MODIS GPP product. One of the main reasons for this is that the applied big‐leaf (BL) MOD17 model cannot properly handle the variable relative contribution of sunlit and shaded leaves to the total canopy‐level GPP. In this study, we developed a model for correcting the errors in the MODIS GPP product by bridging BL and two‐leaf (TL) light use efficiency (LUE) models (CTL‐MOD17). With the available MODIS GPP product, which considers environmental stress factors, the CTL‐MOD17 model only needs to reuse the two inputs of the leaf area index (LAI) and incoming radiation. The CTL‐MOD17 model was calibrated and validated at 153 global FLUXNET eddy covariance (EC) sites. The results indicate that the modeled GPP obtained with the correction model matches better with the EC GPP than the original MODIS GPP product at different time scales, with an improvement of 0.07 in R2 and a reduction in root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) of 117.08 g C m−2 year−1. The improvements are more significant in the green season when the contribution of shaded leaves is larger. In terms of the global spatial pattern, the obvious underestimation in the regions with high LAI and the overestimation in the low LAI regions of the MODIS GPP product is effectively corrected by the CTL‐MOD17 model. This paper not only bridges the BL and TL LUE models, but also provides a new and simple method to obtain accurate GPP through reusing two inputs used in producing the MODIS GPP product.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".