You are on page 1of 49

Integrated Earth System Science: Terrestrial

Ecology at NASA
Quantify the magnitudes and distributions of carbon sources and sinks, explain
the processes controlling them, and produce a consistent analysis of North
America’s carbon budget.

Observations
Dynamic Maps

Model-Data
Fusion
Decision
Support
Field Studies
Diagnostic
Models Predictive
CCSP
Models Interagency
Collaboration

2 Observations & Experiments  Science Results  Estimates & Uncertainties


Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems
Knowledge of the interactions of global biogeochemical cycles and terrestrial
and marine ecosystems with global environmental change and their
implications for the Earth’s climate, productivity, and natural resources is
needed to understand and protect our home planet.

Important Concerns:
•  Potential greenhouse warming (CO2, CH4) and
ecosystem interactions with climate
•  Carbon management (e.g., capacity of plants,
soils, and the ocean to sequester carbon)
•  Productivity of ecosystems (food, fiber, fuel)
•  Ecosystem health and the sustainability of
ecosystem goods and services
•  Biodiversity and invasive species

NASA provides the global perspective and unique combination of


interdisciplinary science, state-of-the-art Earth system modeling, and
diverse synoptic observations needed to document, understand, and
project carbon cycle dynamics and changes in terrestrial and marine
ecosystems and land cover.
Terrestrial Ecology: Remote Sensing
Net Change in Soil Carbon
(30 m) 1991 – 2000

Leaf Area Index (5 km)


June 26 – July 3, 2006
MODIS data
R. Nemani, NASA ARC

0 3 6 Landsat & inventory data. T. West, ORNL

Disturbance & Regrowth Dynamics U.S. Carbon & Biomass 2000 Aboveground Biomass
1972 – 2006 Landsat Data SRTM data
Forest inventory data
Ecosystem carbon models Basal-Area Weighted Height

S. Goward, Univ MD
J. Masek & G. Collatz, GSFC

4
J. Kellndorfer, Woods Hole Research Inst.
Biodiversity Studies in the NASA Remote Sensing
Programs
•  Biosphere-atmosphere interactions
Biodiversity underpins nearly •  Climate system
all of the services provided by •  Secondary production/Fisheries
ecosystems to humans •  Carbon storage and loss
•  Water quantity and quality
•  Cultural, recreational, aesthetic value
AVIRIS Data
Native Invaded
Forest Ecosystems Ecosystems
Metrosideros polymorpha (Ohia)
Morella faya (Fire Tree) - INVADER

100 Other native species…

Plant Species Cover (%)


80
Forest
ent

AVIRIS 60
di
Gra

40
ded

20
Inva

Savanna
Savanna

Shrubland

Shrubland

Asner et al. 2005


Visible ShortWave InfraRed (VSWIR) Imaging Spectrometer
+
Multispectral Thermal InfraRed (TIR) Scanner

VSWIR: Plant Physiology and


Function Types (PPFT)
Multispectral
TIR Scanner

Map
of
dominant
tree
species,
Bartlett
Forest,
NH


Red
tide
algal
bloom
in
Monterey
Bay,
CA

Mapping Wildfire Risk

Canopy Water Content


Estimating Canopy Water Content of Live fuels

Water Plant Dry Biomass

Water content changes


rapidly (daily, weekly)
under dry climate
conditions

It is the only dynamic


component in predicting
wildfire risk

SPOT-4, Landsat Thematic Mapper


& MODIS Bands
Physically Based Approach to Estimating CWC and
FMC: Coupling RT Models: Prospect + Sail
>18 Years of Vegetation Characterization

anatomy LAI, leaf


chlorophyll orientation θs albedo
hot spot parameter phase function
dry biomass θv
cover fraction ϕv roughness
water

ρl(λ)
PROSPECT SAIL ρs (λ,θs,θv,ϕv)HAPKE
τl (λ)

Direct mode
ρ*(λ,θs,θv,ϕv) 6S ρc(λ,θs,θv,ϕv)
Inverse mode
Jacquemoud S. and Baret F. (1990), PROSPECT: a model of leaf optical properties spectra, Remote Sensing of Environment
34:75-91.
Verhoef W (1984), Light scattering by leaf layers with application to canopy reflectance modeling: the SAIL model, Remote Sensing
of Environment 16:125-141.
Jacquemoud, S., W. Verhoef, F. Baret, C. Bacour, P.J. Zarco-Tejada, G.P. Asner, C. François, and S.L. Ustin. (2008), PROSPECT +
SAIL: A Review of Use for Vegetation Characterization. Remote Sensing of Environment 113: S56-S66.
Canopy Scale Validation

EWT trained and


Validated from
independent samples
generated from
PROSPECT-SAILH model

Riaño et al., 2006


Trombetti et al., 2008
Monthly MODIS CWC for Continental U.S. in 2005

▢


□
no
data

Tombetti et al., RSE 2008
Regional September CWC for Southwestern US & Mexico
2000 2001 2002

2003 2004 2005

2006 2007 Deviation from mean


Low <-80 CWC (%)
-80 to -60
-60 to -40
-40 to -20
-20 to 0
0 to 20
20 to 40
40 to 60
60 to 80 Trabucco et al.
■
no
data
 State of California boundary High >80 unpublished
“Water is the world’s most
valuable resource”

Without water it’s all just


chemistry. Add water
and you get biology.

-- Felix Franks,
Cambridge

Yosemite Falls, Yosemite National Park, CA


Global Hydrologic Budget

Taikan Oki and Shinjiro Kanae, Science, 2006


Global Water Resources: Vulnerability from Climate
Change and Population Growth

*threshold indicates severe water


scarcity
C.J. Vörösmarty, et al., 2000 Science
Study Water from a Supply or Energy Focus

Taikan Oki and Shinjiro Kanae, Science, 2006


“ARID”
21
Trends in Spring Runoff Pulse Onset

Snowmelt River Systems


Red = earlier in spring by 5-20 days

Coefficient Temperature Trends with


timing of Spring Runoff

Inset box are non-snowmelt rivers

Stewart et al., 2005 J. Climate


Current and Predicted Changes in Snowpack in Southern
Oregon and California by 2050

Tim Barnett, Scripps Inst. Oceanography


Rivers from Sierra Nevada Mountains Drain 40% of California’s
Freshwater Runoff
Current Condition Winter (DJF) 1995-2005
Mean Surface Air Mean Precipitation
Temperature

>111,300 km2 Elevation Dependent Responses


Producing 30-40 km3 freshwater
Knowles and Cayan, 24
2004
April 1 Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) Is Used to
Estimate Summer Water Supply

April SWE Present April 2060 % loss SWE

25
Knowles and Cayan, 2004
m3/s Freshwater Inflow into San Francisco Bay Today and 2060

Current Monthly Flows, m3/s Difference from Current in 2050

Knowles and Cayan, Climatic Change, 2004


Reduction in April SWE and Area by Elevation in 2060

Knowles and Cayan, Climatic Change, 2004


Water Use in California

Statewide Estimates of Potential


Evapotranspiration

Only possible to Quantify


Where Water is Released to
the Atmosphere Using
Satellite Imagery

June 18, 2010


California Agriculture uses about 80% of the water supply

This moderate reduction in irrigation reduced yield potential


by 34 %.
Midday Soil Water Potential (SWP) in Almond Trees

SWP quantifies the amount of water stress (deficits) in plants


Plants Regulate Water Loss Through Valves that Open and
Close (stomata) on the Leaf Surfaces

When water is available plants


maintain energy balance by
transpiring (latent heat exchange)
and when water isn’t available,
leaves may heat, or the plant can
adopt other strategies.
MASTER Instrument: 50
bands: 25 VIS+NIR
25 TIR

24 in. MASTER Scheduled


to fly June 29 and 1
20 in. over orchards
(both morning and
afternoon)
MASTER Spectral Band Positions (Vis-MWIR)
0.01 to 6 µm

MASTER Spectral Band Positions (Thermal IR)

Band Centers vs. Atmospheric Features


Variability in Leaf Reflectance with Water Content
Water content x 104 (g cm-2)

MASTER
25 bands 25 bands

Water, Absorption
coefficient

Lean Reflectance

Vis NIR, MIR TIR

Jacquemoud, unpublished 2010 USGS & ONERA datasets 2/2


What biophysical properties do we want to measure
to estimate plant water stress?

What leaf and canopy properties are


measured in optical spectrum?
Can we estimate how much plant material is
present and its “health”?

35
Pigment absorption is the dominant process in visible;
Scattering is the dominant process in near-infrared;
Water absorption is increasingly important with wavelength in the mid-infrared. 36
Typical Reflectance Spectra from Semiarid
Environment

Reflectance
Soil

Stanford’s Jasper Ridge Biological Wavelength nm


Field
Green leaves of:
Station in the Central California Coast
Range ■California bay and ■ Coastal sage
■ dry grass
■ bare soil
Jasper Ridge, California
What Happens to Leaf/Plant Spectra When they are Stressed
or Dead?

Reflectance
Soil

Across this
Wavelength range Wavelength nm
How does canopy reflectance change as plants grow and mature?

Reflectance
Soil

Across this
Wavelength range Wavelength nm
Vegetation Indexes: ratios of bands sensitive to a biochemical of
interest to bands insensitive to that biochemical

Natural
color
Color IR
Physiological Indexes of canopy Simple Index (SR)
“Greenness”
SR = Rred / RNIR

and Normalized
Difference Vegetation
Index (NDVI)
NDVI =
0.813

NDVI =
0.547

NDVI =
0.139
SR and NDVI:
Separate green
plants from soil/
plant litter
Physiological Water Indexes

Water Band Index (WBI)

WBI = WBI = Ratio of reflectance at


1.52 1.02
900 nm(yellow
band) and 970 nm
liquid water
absorption feature
(cyan band).

Can be used to
estimate water
stress in crops
2 More Infrared Water Indexes

NDMI
NDMI =
NDWI
(NIR 800 – MIR1700)/
(NIR 800+ MIR1700)
NDWI =
(NIR800 – MIR2300) /
(NIR800 + MIR2300)
Red and Near-Infrared “Soil Line”

Example of Soil line extracted from


NIR vs RED data
Identifying Canopy Water Stress from Temperature
and Vapor Pressure (CWSI)

Canopy minus air temperature (Tc -Ta) versus vapor pressure deficit (VPD) for
well-watered and maximally stressed soybeans based on measurements at
various sites across the United States.

The Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI) is computed as the ratio of the distances
CB and AB. Crop Water Stress Detection, USDA ARS, 2005
Differential water treatments cotton field near
Phoenix , Arizona Measured with TIR data

Surface temperature image, 28 July 1999, 12:30 derived from a


scanning infrared thermomter mounted on a linear move irrigation
system (see Barnes et al., 2000).
Triangle Method for Estimating ET

USDA Crop Water Stress Detection


2005
Almond orchard: Max
irrigation and
nutrients

LAI = 2.65 ET 1.064 mm/hr


Drip irrigation

LAI = 2.28 ET 1.058 mm/hr


Fanjet
irrigation

MASTER data July 2009


Questions?