Dynamic savanna burning emission factors based on satellite data using a machine learning approach

Roland Vernooij, Tom Eames, Jeremy Russell-Smith, Cameron Yates, Robin Beatty, Jay Evans, Andrew Edwards, Natasha Ribeiro, Martin Wooster, Tercia Strydom, Marcos Vinicius Giongo, Marco Assis Borges, Máximo Menezes Costa, Ana Carolina Sena Barradas, Dave van Wees, Guido R. Van der Werf
{"title":"Dynamic savanna burning emission factors based on satellite data using a machine learning approach","authors":"Roland Vernooij, Tom Eames, Jeremy Russell-Smith, Cameron Yates, Robin Beatty, Jay Evans, Andrew Edwards, Natasha Ribeiro, Martin Wooster, Tercia Strydom, Marcos Vinicius Giongo, Marco Assis Borges, Máximo Menezes Costa, Ana Carolina Sena Barradas, Dave van Wees, Guido R. Van der Werf","doi":"10.5194/esd-14-1039-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Landscape fires, predominantly found in the frequently burning global savannas, are a substantial source of greenhouse gases and aerosols. The impact of these fires on atmospheric composition is partially determined by the chemical breakup of the constituents of the fuel into individual emitted chemical species, which is described by emission factors (EFs). These EFs are known to be dependent on, amongst other things, the type of fuel consumed, the moisture content of the fuel, and the meteorological conditions during the fire, indicating that savanna EFs are temporally and spatially dynamic. Global emission inventories, however, rely on static biome-averaged EFs, which makes them ill-suited for the estimation of regional biomass burning (BB) emissions and for capturing the effects of shifts in fire regimes. In this study we explore the main drivers of EF variability within the savanna biome and assess which geospatial proxies can be used to estimate dynamic EFs for global emission inventories. We made over 4500 bag measurements of CO2, CO, CH4, and N2O EFs using a UAS and also measured fuel parameters and fire-severity proxies during 129 individual fires. The measurements cover a variety of savanna ecosystems under different seasonal conditions sampled over the course of six fire seasons between 2017 and 2022. We complemented our own data with EFs from 85 fires with locations and dates provided in the literature. Based on the locations, dates, and times of the fires we retrieved a variety of fuel, weather, and fire-severity proxies (i.e. possible predictors) using globally available satellite and reanalysis data. We then trained random forest (RF) regressors to estimate EFs for CO2, CO, CH4, and N2O at a spatial resolution of 0.25∘ and a monthly time step. Using these modelled EFs, we calculated their spatiotemporal impact on BB emission estimates over the 2002–2016 period using the Global Fire Emissions Database version 4 with small fires (GFED4s). We found that the most important field indicators for the EFs of CO2, CO, and CH4 were tree cover density, fuel moisture content, and the grass-to-litter ratio. The grass-to-litter ratio and the nitrogen-to-carbon ratio were important indicators for N2O EFs. RF models using satellite observations performed well for the prediction of EF variability in the measured fires with out-of-sample correlation coefficients between 0.80 and 0.99, reducing the error between measured and modelled EFs by 60 %–85 % compared to using the static biome average. Using dynamic EFs, total global savanna emission estimates for 2002–2016 were 1.8 % higher for CO, while CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions were, respectively, 0.2 %, 5 %, and 18 % lower compared to GFED4s. On a regional scale we found a spatial redistribution compared to GFED4s with higher CO, CH4, and N2O EFs in mesic regions and lower ones in xeric regions. Over the course of the fire season, drying resulted in gradually lower EFs of these species. Relatively speaking, the trend was stronger in open savannas than in woodlands, where towards the end of the fire season they increased again. Contrary to the minor impact on annual average savanna fire emissions, the model predicts localized deviations from static averages of the EFs of CO, CH4, and N2O exceeding 60 % under seasonal conditions.","PeriodicalId":11466,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Dynamics Discussions","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth System Dynamics Discussions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1039-2023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract. Landscape fires, predominantly found in the frequently burning global savannas, are a substantial source of greenhouse gases and aerosols. The impact of these fires on atmospheric composition is partially determined by the chemical breakup of the constituents of the fuel into individual emitted chemical species, which is described by emission factors (EFs). These EFs are known to be dependent on, amongst other things, the type of fuel consumed, the moisture content of the fuel, and the meteorological conditions during the fire, indicating that savanna EFs are temporally and spatially dynamic. Global emission inventories, however, rely on static biome-averaged EFs, which makes them ill-suited for the estimation of regional biomass burning (BB) emissions and for capturing the effects of shifts in fire regimes. In this study we explore the main drivers of EF variability within the savanna biome and assess which geospatial proxies can be used to estimate dynamic EFs for global emission inventories. We made over 4500 bag measurements of CO2, CO, CH4, and N2O EFs using a UAS and also measured fuel parameters and fire-severity proxies during 129 individual fires. The measurements cover a variety of savanna ecosystems under different seasonal conditions sampled over the course of six fire seasons between 2017 and 2022. We complemented our own data with EFs from 85 fires with locations and dates provided in the literature. Based on the locations, dates, and times of the fires we retrieved a variety of fuel, weather, and fire-severity proxies (i.e. possible predictors) using globally available satellite and reanalysis data. We then trained random forest (RF) regressors to estimate EFs for CO2, CO, CH4, and N2O at a spatial resolution of 0.25∘ and a monthly time step. Using these modelled EFs, we calculated their spatiotemporal impact on BB emission estimates over the 2002–2016 period using the Global Fire Emissions Database version 4 with small fires (GFED4s). We found that the most important field indicators for the EFs of CO2, CO, and CH4 were tree cover density, fuel moisture content, and the grass-to-litter ratio. The grass-to-litter ratio and the nitrogen-to-carbon ratio were important indicators for N2O EFs. RF models using satellite observations performed well for the prediction of EF variability in the measured fires with out-of-sample correlation coefficients between 0.80 and 0.99, reducing the error between measured and modelled EFs by 60 %–85 % compared to using the static biome average. Using dynamic EFs, total global savanna emission estimates for 2002–2016 were 1.8 % higher for CO, while CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions were, respectively, 0.2 %, 5 %, and 18 % lower compared to GFED4s. On a regional scale we found a spatial redistribution compared to GFED4s with higher CO, CH4, and N2O EFs in mesic regions and lower ones in xeric regions. Over the course of the fire season, drying resulted in gradually lower EFs of these species. Relatively speaking, the trend was stronger in open savannas than in woodlands, where towards the end of the fire season they increased again. Contrary to the minor impact on annual average savanna fire emissions, the model predicts localized deviations from static averages of the EFs of CO, CH4, and N2O exceeding 60 % under seasonal conditions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用机器学习方法基于卫星数据的动态稀树草原燃烧排放因子
摘要景观火灾主要发生在频繁燃烧的全球稀树草原,是温室气体和气溶胶的重要来源。这些火灾对大气成分的影响部分取决于燃料成分的化学分解成单个排放的化学物质,这是由排放因子(EFs)描述的。众所周知,这些电场取决于所消耗的燃料类型、燃料的水分含量以及火灾期间的气象条件等因素,这表明热带稀树草原电场在时间和空间上是动态的。然而,全球排放清单依赖于静态的生物群落平均EFs,这使得它们不适合估计区域生物质燃烧(BB)排放和捕捉火灾制度变化的影响。在这项研究中,我们探讨了稀树草原生物群系中生态环境变化的主要驱动因素,并评估了哪些地理空间代理可以用来估计全球排放清单的动态生态环境。我们使用UAS测量了4500多个袋子的CO2、CO、CH4和N2O EFs,并测量了129次单独火灾中的燃料参数和火灾严重程度代理。这些测量涵盖了2017年至2022年六个五季期间不同季节条件下的各种稀树草原生态系统。我们用文献中提供的地点和日期的85起火灾的电场数据来补充我们自己的数据。根据火灾的地点、日期和时间,我们使用全球可用的卫星和再分析数据检索了各种燃料、天气和火灾严重性代理(即可能的预测指标)。然后,我们训练随机森林(RF)回归器,以0.25°的空间分辨率和每月的时间步长估算CO2、CO、CH4和N2O的EFs。利用这些模拟的ef,我们使用包含小火灾的全球火灾排放数据库第4版(GFED4s)计算了2002-2016年期间它们对BB排放估算的时空影响。研究发现,植被密度、燃料含水率和草枯比是影响CO2、CO和CH4生态效应最重要的野外指标。草枯比和氮碳比是N2O生态效应的重要指标。使用卫星观测的射频模型在预测实测火灾的EF变异性方面表现良好,样本外相关系数在0.80 ~ 0.99之间,与使用静态生物群系平均值相比,将实测和模拟的EF之间的误差降低了60% ~ 85%。使用动态EFs,与gfed4相比,2002-2016年全球热带稀树草原CO总排放量估算值高出1.8%,而CO2、CH4和N2O排放量分别降低0.2%、5%和18%。在区域尺度上,与gfed4相比,CO、CH4和N2O排放在中置区较高,在干旱区较低。在整个火灾季节,干燥导致这些物种的EFs逐渐降低。相对而言,这一趋势在开阔的稀树草原上比在森林中更强烈,在森林中,在火灾季节结束时,它们再次增加。与对年平均热带稀树草原火灾排放的影响较小相反,该模型预测在季节条件下CO、CH4和N2O的EFs与静态平均值的局部偏差超过60%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ESD Ideas: Arctic amplification's contribution to breaches of the Paris Agreement Derailment risk: A systems analysis that identifies risks which could derail the sustainability transition Nonlinear time series analysis of coastal temperatures and El Niño–Southern Oscillation events in the eastern South Pacific MIROC6 Large Ensemble (MIROC6-LE): experimental design and initial analyses A quantitative assessment of air–sea heat flux trends from ERA5 since 1950 in the North Atlantic basin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1