Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Mechanistic Modeling of Microtopographic Impacts on CO2 and CH4 Fluxes in an Alaskan Tundra Ecosystem Using the CLM‐Microbe Model
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Mechanistic Modeling of Microtopographic Impacts on CO2 and CH4 Fluxes in an Alaskan Tundra Ecosystem Using the CLM‐Microbe Model
Do you wish to request the book?
Mechanistic Modeling of Microtopographic Impacts on CO2 and CH4 Fluxes in an Alaskan Tundra Ecosystem Using the CLM‐Microbe Model
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Mechanistic Modeling of Microtopographic Impacts on CO2 and CH4 Fluxes in an Alaskan Tundra Ecosystem Using the CLM‐Microbe Model
2019
Overview
Spatial heterogeneities in soil hydrology have been confirmed as a key control on CO2 and CH4 fluxes in the Arctic tundra ecosystem. In this study, we applied a mechanistic ecosystem model, CLM‐Microbe, to examine the microtopographic impacts on CO2 and CH4 fluxes across seven landscape types in Utqiaġvik, Alaska: trough, low‐centered polygon (LCP) center, LCP transition, LCP rim, high‐centered polygon (HCP) center, HCP transition, and HCP rim. We first validated the CLM‐Microbe model against static‐chamber measured CO2 and CH4 fluxes in 2013 for three landscape types: trough, LCP center, and LCP rim. Model application showed that low‐elevation and thus wetter landscape types (i.e., trough, transitions, and LCP center) had larger CH4 emissions rates with greater seasonal variations than high‐elevation and drier landscape types (rims and HCP center). Sensitivity analysis indicated that substrate availability for methanogenesis (acetate, CO2 + H2) is the most important factor determining CH4 emission, and vegetation physiological properties largely affect the net ecosystem carbon exchange and ecosystem respiration in Arctic tundra ecosystems. Modeled CH4 emissions for different microtopographic features were upscaled to the eddy covariance (EC) domain with an area‐weighted approach before validation against EC‐measured CH4 fluxes. The model underestimated the EC‐measured CH4 flux by 20% and 25% at daily and hourly time steps, suggesting the importance of the time step in reporting CH4 flux. The strong microtopographic impacts on CO2 and CH4 fluxes call for a model‐data integration framework for better understanding and predicting carbon flux in the highly heterogeneous Arctic landscape. Key Points The CLM‐microbe model is able to simulate microtopographical impacts on CO2 and CH4 flux in the Arctic Substrates availability for methanogenesis is the most important factor determining CH4 emission The strong microtopographic impacts call for a model‐data integration framework to better understand and predict C flux in the Arctic
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
