Comparison of gap-filling methods for CO2 flux data
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X80997Keywords:
CO2 flux, Gap filling, Missing dataAbstract
Data collected by sensors are always subject to possible failures, whether due to power failure, external interference, among others.. Moreover, much of the data is not considered during the filtering process because it is physically inconsistent. These failures result in the need to implement various methods of data processing, with a focus on filling in missing records. In the case of CO2 flux data, filling in the missing data is crucial to obtain annual data and the carbon balance. The REddyProc package is widely used and documented in terms of filling this type of data. However, modern methods have been increasingly explored to optimize this process. In this study, we compare data filling between the REddyProc package and the KNN Imputer method. Preliminary results show that the REddyProc package has better statistical indices when filling CO2 streams compared to the KNN method.
Downloads
References
BAGGIO, R. Estratégias de manejo adaptativo para os Campos Sulinos. 2017. 129 p. Tese (Doutorado em Ecologia) — Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2017.
BALDOCCHI, D. et al. The challenges of measuring methane fluxes and concentrations over a peatland pasture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, v. 153, p. 177–187, 2012.
BÉZIAT, P.; CESCHIA, E.; DEDIEU, G. Carbon balance of a three crop succession over two cropland sites in South West France. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, v. 149, n. 10, p. 1628– 1645, mar. 2009.
FALGE, E., et al., Gap filling strategies for defensible annual sums of net ecosystem exchange. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, v. 107, p. 43–69. 2001
FOKEN, T et al., 2004. Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for surface flux measurement and analysis: Chapter 9: POST-FIELD DATA QUALITY CONTROL, Handbook of Micrometeorology.
IPCC. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. [s.l: s.n.].
IPCC. I. P. ON C. C. Mitigation of climate change. In Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: [s.n.].
MARSHALL, G. Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences, second edition D. S. Wilks. 1995. International Geophysics Series, Vol 59, Academic Press, 464pp. ISBN-10: 0127519653. ISBN-13: 978-0127519654. Meteorological Applications, v. 14, n. 2, p. 205–205, jun. 2007.
MONCRIEFF, J. B. et al. A system to measure surface fluxes of momentum, sensible heat, water vapour and carbon dioxide. Journal of Hydrology, 1997.
MONCRIEFF, J. et al. Averaging, detrending, and filtering of eddy covariance time series, in Handbook of micrometeorology. Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for surface flux measurement and analysis, 2004.
PANCHASARA, H.; SAMRAT, N. H.; ISLAM, N. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends and Mitigation Measures in Australian Agriculture Sector—A Review. Agriculture, v. 11, n. 2, p. 85, 20 jan. 2021.
REICHSTEIN, M. et al. On the separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and ecosystem respiration: review and improved algorithm. Global Change Biology, v. 11, n. 9, p. 1424– 1439, set. 2005.
SCIKIT-LEARN: Machine Learning in Python, Pedregosa et al., JMLR 12, pp. 2825-2830, 2011.
VICKERS, D.; MAHRT, L. Quality control and flux sampling problems for tower and aircraft data. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 1997.
WEBB, E. K.; PEARMAN, G. I.; LEUNING, R. Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 1980. WILCZAK, J. M.; ONCLEY, S. P.; STAGE, S. A. Sonic anemometer tilt correction algorithms. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 2001.
WUTZLER, T. et al. Basic and extensible post-processing of eddy covariance flux data with REddyProc. Biogeosciences, 2018.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
