Articles | Volume 15, issue 12
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4709-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4709-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model description paper
| 
20 Jun 2022
Model description paper |
| 20 Jun 2022
| 20 Jun 2022
A map of global peatland extent created using machine learning (Peat-ML)
Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, Canada
Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada
Koreen Millard
Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Matthew Fortier
Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, Canada
R. Scott Winton
Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Department of Surface Waters, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institution of Aquatic Science and Technology, 6047 Kastanienbaum, Switzerland
Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Javier M. Martín-López
Agroecosystems and Sustainable Landscapes Program, Alliance Bioversity-CIAT, Cali, Colombia
Hinsby Cadillo-Quiroz
School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
Darren Kidd
Natural Values Science Services, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Louis V. Verchot
Agroecosystems and Sustainable Landscapes Program, Alliance Bioversity-CIAT, Cali, Colombia
Related authors
Jade Skye, Joe R. Melton, Colin Goldblatt, Louis Saumier, Angela Gallego-Sala, Michelle Garneau, R. Scott Winton, Erick B. Bahati, Juan C. Benavides, Lee Fedorchuk, Gérard Imani, Carol Kagaba, Frank Kansiime, Mariusz Lamentowicz, Michel Mbasi, Daria Wochal, Sambor Czerwiński, Jacek Landowski, Joanna Landowska, Vincent Maire, Minna M. Väliranta, Matthew Warren, Lydia E. S. Cole, Marissa A. Davies, Erik A. Lilleskov, Jingjing Sun, and Yuwan Wang
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-432, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-432, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Peatlands are large stores of carbon but are vulnerable to human activities and climate change. Comprehensive peatland data are vital to understand these ecosystems, but existing datasets are fragmented and contain errors. To address this, we created Peat-DBase — a standardized global database of peat depth measurements with > 200,000 measurements worldwide, showing average depths of 144 cm. Peat-DBase avoids overlapping data compilation efforts while identifying critical observational gaps.
Hanyu Liu, Felix R. Vogel, Misa Ishizawa, Zhen Zhang, Benjamin Poulter, Doug E. J. Worthy, Leyang Feng, Anna L. Gagné-Landmann, Ao Chen, Ziting Huang, Dylan C. Gaeta, Joe R. Melton, Douglas Chan, Vineet Yadav, Deborah Huntzinger, and Scot M. Miller
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2150, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2150, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We find that the state-of-the-art process-based methane flux models have both lower flux magnitude and reduced inter-model uncertainty compared to a previous model inter-comparison from over a decade ago. Despite these improvements, methane flux estimates from process-based models are still likely too high compared to atmospheric observations. We also find that models with simpler parameterizations often result in better agreement with atmospheric observations in high-latitude North America.
Konstantin Gregor, Benjamin F. Meyer, Tillmann Gaida, Victor Justo Vasquez, Karina Bett-Williams, Matthew Forrest, João P. Darela-Filho, Sam Rabin, Marcos Longo, Joe R. Melton, Johan Nord, Peter Anthoni, Vladislav Bastrikov, Thomas Colligan, Christine Delire, Michael C. Dietze, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Lasse T. Keetz, Jürgen Knauer, Johannes Köster, Tzu-Shun Lin, Lei Ma, Marie Minvielle, Stefan Olin, Sebastian Ostberg, Hao Shi, Reiner Schnur, Urs Schönenberger, Qing Sun, Peter E. Thornton, and Anja Rammig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientific models are crucial for understanding Earth’s processes. However, they sometimes do not adhere to highest software quality standards, and scientific results are often hard to reproduce due to the complexity of the workflows. Here we gather the expertise of 20 modeling groups and software engineers to define best practices for making geoscientific models maintainable, usable, and reproducible. We conclude with an open-source example serving as a reference for modeling communities.
Marielle Saunois, Adrien Martinez, Benjamin Poulter, Zhen Zhang, Peter A. Raymond, Pierre Regnier, Josep G. Canadell, Robert B. Jackson, Prabir K. Patra, Philippe Bousquet, Philippe Ciais, Edward J. Dlugokencky, Xin Lan, George H. Allen, David Bastviken, David J. Beerling, Dmitry A. Belikov, Donald R. Blake, Simona Castaldi, Monica Crippa, Bridget R. Deemer, Fraser Dennison, Giuseppe Etiope, Nicola Gedney, Lena Höglund-Isaksson, Meredith A. Holgerson, Peter O. Hopcroft, Gustaf Hugelius, Akihiko Ito, Atul K. Jain, Rajesh Janardanan, Matthew S. Johnson, Thomas Kleinen, Paul B. Krummel, Ronny Lauerwald, Tingting Li, Xiangyu Liu, Kyle C. McDonald, Joe R. Melton, Jens Mühle, Jurek Müller, Fabiola Murguia-Flores, Yosuke Niwa, Sergio Noce, Shufen Pan, Robert J. Parker, Changhui Peng, Michel Ramonet, William J. Riley, Gerard Rocher-Ros, Judith A. Rosentreter, Motoki Sasakawa, Arjo Segers, Steven J. Smith, Emily H. Stanley, Joël Thanwerdas, Hanqin Tian, Aki Tsuruta, Francesco N. Tubiello, Thomas S. Weber, Guido R. van der Werf, Douglas E. J. Worthy, Yi Xi, Yukio Yoshida, Wenxin Zhang, Bo Zheng, Qing Zhu, Qiuan Zhu, and Qianlai Zhuang
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1873–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1873-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1873-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Methane (CH4) is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2). A consortium of multi-disciplinary scientists synthesise and update the budget of the sources and sinks of CH4. This edition benefits from important progress in estimating emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. For the 2010s decade, global CH4 emissions are estimated at 575 Tg CH4 yr-1, including ~65 % from anthropogenic sources.
Libo Wang, Lawrence Mudryk, Joe R. Melton, Colleen Mortimer, Jason Cole, Gesa Meyer, Paul Bartlett, and Mickaël Lalande
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1264, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1264, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study shows that an alternate snow cover fraction (SCF) parameterization significantly improves SCF simulated in the CLASSIC model in mountainous areas for all three choices of meteorological datasets. Annual mean bias, unbiased root mean squared area, and correlation improve by 75 %, 32 %, and 7 % when evaluated with MODIS SCF observations over the Northern Hemisphere. We also link relative biases in the meteorological forcing data to differences in simulated snow water equivalent and SCF.
Zhen Zhang, Benjamin Poulter, Joe R. Melton, William J. Riley, George H. Allen, David J. Beerling, Philippe Bousquet, Josep G. Canadell, Etienne Fluet-Chouinard, Philippe Ciais, Nicola Gedney, Peter O. Hopcroft, Akihiko Ito, Robert B. Jackson, Atul K. Jain, Katherine Jensen, Fortunat Joos, Thomas Kleinen, Sara H. Knox, Tingting Li, Xin Li, Xiangyu Liu, Kyle McDonald, Gavin McNicol, Paul A. Miller, Jurek Müller, Prabir K. Patra, Changhui Peng, Shushi Peng, Zhangcai Qin, Ryan M. Riggs, Marielle Saunois, Qing Sun, Hanqin Tian, Xiaoming Xu, Yuanzhi Yao, Yi Xi, Wenxin Zhang, Qing Zhu, Qiuan Zhu, and Qianlai Zhuang
Biogeosciences, 22, 305–321, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-305-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-305-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses global methane emissions from wetlands between 2000 and 2020 using multiple models. We found that wetland emissions increased by 6–7 Tg CH4 yr-1 in the 2010s compared to the 2000s. Rising temperatures primarily drove this increase, while changes in precipitation and CO2 levels also played roles. Our findings highlight the importance of wetlands in the global methane budget and the need for continuous monitoring to understand their impact on climate change.
Misa Ishizawa, Douglas Chan, Doug Worthy, Elton Chan, Felix Vogel, Joe R. Melton, and Vivek K. Arora
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10013–10038, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10013-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10013-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Methane (CH4) emissions in Canada for 2007–2017 were estimated using Canada’s surface greenhouse gas measurements. The estimated emissions show no significant trend, but emission uncertainty was reduced as more measurement sites became available. Notably for climate change, we find the wetland CH4 emissions show a positive correlation with surface air temperature in summer. Canada’s measurement network could monitor future CH4 emission changes and compliance with climate change mitigation goals.
Salvatore R. Curasi, Joe R. Melton, Elyn R. Humphreys, Txomin Hermosilla, and Michael A. Wulder
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2683–2704, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2683-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2683-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Canadian forests are responding to fire, harvest, and climate change. Models need to quantify these processes and their carbon and energy cycling impacts. We develop a scheme that, based on satellite records, represents fire, harvest, and the sparsely vegetated areas that these processes generate. We evaluate model performance and demonstrate the impacts of disturbance on carbon and energy cycling. This work has implications for land surface modeling and assessing Canada’s terrestrial C cycle.
Bo Qu, Alexandre Roy, Joe R. Melton, Jennifer L. Baltzer, Youngryel Ryu, Matteo Detto, and Oliver Sonnentag
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1167, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1167, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Accurately simulating photosynthesis and evapotranspiration challenges terrestrial biosphere models across North America’s boreal biome, in part due to uncertain representation of the maximum rate of photosynthetic carboxylation (Vcmax). This study used forest stand scale observations in an optimization framework to improve Vcmax values for representative vegetation types. Several stand characteristics well explained spatial Vcmax variability and were useful to improve boreal forest modelling.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2021 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Lina Teckentrup, Martin G. De Kauwe, Andrew J. Pitman, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Anthony P. Walker, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 18, 5639–5668, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Australian continent is included in global assessments of the carbon cycle such as the global carbon budget, yet the performance of dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) over Australia has rarely been evaluated. We assessed simulations by an ensemble of dynamic global vegetation models over Australia and highlighted a number of key areas that lead to model divergence on both short (inter-annual) and long (decadal) timescales.
Claude-Michel Nzotungicimpaye, Kirsten Zickfeld, Andrew H. MacDougall, Joe R. Melton, Claire C. Treat, Michael Eby, and Lance F. W. Lesack
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6215–6240, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6215-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6215-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we describe a new wetland methane model (WETMETH) developed for use in Earth system models. WETMETH consists of simple formulations to represent methane production and oxidation in wetlands. We also present an evaluation of the model performance as embedded in the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model (UVic ESCM). WETMETH is capable of reproducing mean annual methane emissions consistent with present-day estimates from the regional to the global scale.
Gesa Meyer, Elyn R. Humphreys, Joe R. Melton, Alex J. Cannon, and Peter M. Lafleur
Biogeosciences, 18, 3263–3283, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3263-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3263-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Shrub and sedge plant functional types (PFTs) were incorporated in the land surface component of the Canadian Earth System Model to improve representation of Arctic tundra ecosystems. Evaluated against 14 years of non-winter measurements, the magnitude and seasonality of carbon dioxide and energy fluxes at a Canadian dwarf-shrub tundra site were better captured by the shrub PFTs than by previously used grass and tree PFTs. Model simulations showed the tundra site to be an annual net CO2 source.
Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Tammas Loughran, Kerstin Hartung, Ana Bastos, Felix Havermann, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Daniel S. Goll, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Benjamin Poulter, Stephen Sitch, Michael O. Sullivan, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Soenke Zaehle, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 635–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We provide the first spatio-temporally explicit comparison of different model-derived fluxes from land use and land cover changes (fLULCCs) by using the TRENDY v8 dynamic global vegetation models used in the 2019 global carbon budget. We find huge regional fLULCC differences resulting from environmental assumptions, simulated periods, and the timing of land use and land cover changes, and we argue for a method consistent across time and space and for carefully choosing the accounting period.
Zichong Chen, Junjie Liu, Daven K. Henze, Deborah N. Huntzinger, Kelley C. Wells, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Emilie Joetzjer, Vladislav Bastrikov, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Hanqin Tian, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Scot M. Miller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6663–6680, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) satellite observes atmospheric CO2 globally. We use a multiple regression and inverse model to quantify the relationships between OCO-2 and environmental drivers within individual years for 2015–2018 and within seven global biomes. Our results point to limitations of current space-based observations for inferring environmental relationships but also indicate the potential to inform key relationships that are very uncertain in process-based models.
Christian Seiler, Joe R. Melton, Vivek K. Arora, and Libo Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2371–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates how well the CLASSIC land surface model reproduces the energy, water, and carbon cycle when compared against a wide range of global observations. Special attention is paid to how uncertainties in the data used to drive and evaluate the model affect model skill. Our results show the importance of incorporating uncertainties when evaluating land surface models and that failing to do so may potentially misguide future model development.
Jade Skye, Joe R. Melton, Colin Goldblatt, Louis Saumier, Angela Gallego-Sala, Michelle Garneau, R. Scott Winton, Erick B. Bahati, Juan C. Benavides, Lee Fedorchuk, Gérard Imani, Carol Kagaba, Frank Kansiime, Mariusz Lamentowicz, Michel Mbasi, Daria Wochal, Sambor Czerwiński, Jacek Landowski, Joanna Landowska, Vincent Maire, Minna M. Väliranta, Matthew Warren, Lydia E. S. Cole, Marissa A. Davies, Erik A. Lilleskov, Jingjing Sun, and Yuwan Wang
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-432, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-432, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Peatlands are large stores of carbon but are vulnerable to human activities and climate change. Comprehensive peatland data are vital to understand these ecosystems, but existing datasets are fragmented and contain errors. To address this, we created Peat-DBase — a standardized global database of peat depth measurements with > 200,000 measurements worldwide, showing average depths of 144 cm. Peat-DBase avoids overlapping data compilation efforts while identifying critical observational gaps.
Hanyu Liu, Felix R. Vogel, Misa Ishizawa, Zhen Zhang, Benjamin Poulter, Doug E. J. Worthy, Leyang Feng, Anna L. Gagné-Landmann, Ao Chen, Ziting Huang, Dylan C. Gaeta, Joe R. Melton, Douglas Chan, Vineet Yadav, Deborah Huntzinger, and Scot M. Miller
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2150, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2150, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We find that the state-of-the-art process-based methane flux models have both lower flux magnitude and reduced inter-model uncertainty compared to a previous model inter-comparison from over a decade ago. Despite these improvements, methane flux estimates from process-based models are still likely too high compared to atmospheric observations. We also find that models with simpler parameterizations often result in better agreement with atmospheric observations in high-latitude North America.
Konstantin Gregor, Benjamin F. Meyer, Tillmann Gaida, Victor Justo Vasquez, Karina Bett-Williams, Matthew Forrest, João P. Darela-Filho, Sam Rabin, Marcos Longo, Joe R. Melton, Johan Nord, Peter Anthoni, Vladislav Bastrikov, Thomas Colligan, Christine Delire, Michael C. Dietze, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Lasse T. Keetz, Jürgen Knauer, Johannes Köster, Tzu-Shun Lin, Lei Ma, Marie Minvielle, Stefan Olin, Sebastian Ostberg, Hao Shi, Reiner Schnur, Urs Schönenberger, Qing Sun, Peter E. Thornton, and Anja Rammig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientific models are crucial for understanding Earth’s processes. However, they sometimes do not adhere to highest software quality standards, and scientific results are often hard to reproduce due to the complexity of the workflows. Here we gather the expertise of 20 modeling groups and software engineers to define best practices for making geoscientific models maintainable, usable, and reproducible. We conclude with an open-source example serving as a reference for modeling communities.
Marielle Saunois, Adrien Martinez, Benjamin Poulter, Zhen Zhang, Peter A. Raymond, Pierre Regnier, Josep G. Canadell, Robert B. Jackson, Prabir K. Patra, Philippe Bousquet, Philippe Ciais, Edward J. Dlugokencky, Xin Lan, George H. Allen, David Bastviken, David J. Beerling, Dmitry A. Belikov, Donald R. Blake, Simona Castaldi, Monica Crippa, Bridget R. Deemer, Fraser Dennison, Giuseppe Etiope, Nicola Gedney, Lena Höglund-Isaksson, Meredith A. Holgerson, Peter O. Hopcroft, Gustaf Hugelius, Akihiko Ito, Atul K. Jain, Rajesh Janardanan, Matthew S. Johnson, Thomas Kleinen, Paul B. Krummel, Ronny Lauerwald, Tingting Li, Xiangyu Liu, Kyle C. McDonald, Joe R. Melton, Jens Mühle, Jurek Müller, Fabiola Murguia-Flores, Yosuke Niwa, Sergio Noce, Shufen Pan, Robert J. Parker, Changhui Peng, Michel Ramonet, William J. Riley, Gerard Rocher-Ros, Judith A. Rosentreter, Motoki Sasakawa, Arjo Segers, Steven J. Smith, Emily H. Stanley, Joël Thanwerdas, Hanqin Tian, Aki Tsuruta, Francesco N. Tubiello, Thomas S. Weber, Guido R. van der Werf, Douglas E. J. Worthy, Yi Xi, Yukio Yoshida, Wenxin Zhang, Bo Zheng, Qing Zhu, Qiuan Zhu, and Qianlai Zhuang
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1873–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1873-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1873-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Methane (CH4) is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2). A consortium of multi-disciplinary scientists synthesise and update the budget of the sources and sinks of CH4. This edition benefits from important progress in estimating emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. For the 2010s decade, global CH4 emissions are estimated at 575 Tg CH4 yr-1, including ~65 % from anthropogenic sources.
Libo Wang, Lawrence Mudryk, Joe R. Melton, Colleen Mortimer, Jason Cole, Gesa Meyer, Paul Bartlett, and Mickaël Lalande
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1264, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1264, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study shows that an alternate snow cover fraction (SCF) parameterization significantly improves SCF simulated in the CLASSIC model in mountainous areas for all three choices of meteorological datasets. Annual mean bias, unbiased root mean squared area, and correlation improve by 75 %, 32 %, and 7 % when evaluated with MODIS SCF observations over the Northern Hemisphere. We also link relative biases in the meteorological forcing data to differences in simulated snow water equivalent and SCF.
Zhen Zhang, Benjamin Poulter, Joe R. Melton, William J. Riley, George H. Allen, David J. Beerling, Philippe Bousquet, Josep G. Canadell, Etienne Fluet-Chouinard, Philippe Ciais, Nicola Gedney, Peter O. Hopcroft, Akihiko Ito, Robert B. Jackson, Atul K. Jain, Katherine Jensen, Fortunat Joos, Thomas Kleinen, Sara H. Knox, Tingting Li, Xin Li, Xiangyu Liu, Kyle McDonald, Gavin McNicol, Paul A. Miller, Jurek Müller, Prabir K. Patra, Changhui Peng, Shushi Peng, Zhangcai Qin, Ryan M. Riggs, Marielle Saunois, Qing Sun, Hanqin Tian, Xiaoming Xu, Yuanzhi Yao, Yi Xi, Wenxin Zhang, Qing Zhu, Qiuan Zhu, and Qianlai Zhuang
Biogeosciences, 22, 305–321, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-305-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-305-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses global methane emissions from wetlands between 2000 and 2020 using multiple models. We found that wetland emissions increased by 6–7 Tg CH4 yr-1 in the 2010s compared to the 2000s. Rising temperatures primarily drove this increase, while changes in precipitation and CO2 levels also played roles. Our findings highlight the importance of wetlands in the global methane budget and the need for continuous monitoring to understand their impact on climate change.
Misa Ishizawa, Douglas Chan, Doug Worthy, Elton Chan, Felix Vogel, Joe R. Melton, and Vivek K. Arora
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10013–10038, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10013-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10013-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Methane (CH4) emissions in Canada for 2007–2017 were estimated using Canada’s surface greenhouse gas measurements. The estimated emissions show no significant trend, but emission uncertainty was reduced as more measurement sites became available. Notably for climate change, we find the wetland CH4 emissions show a positive correlation with surface air temperature in summer. Canada’s measurement network could monitor future CH4 emission changes and compliance with climate change mitigation goals.
Salvatore R. Curasi, Joe R. Melton, Elyn R. Humphreys, Txomin Hermosilla, and Michael A. Wulder
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2683–2704, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2683-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2683-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Canadian forests are responding to fire, harvest, and climate change. Models need to quantify these processes and their carbon and energy cycling impacts. We develop a scheme that, based on satellite records, represents fire, harvest, and the sparsely vegetated areas that these processes generate. We evaluate model performance and demonstrate the impacts of disturbance on carbon and energy cycling. This work has implications for land surface modeling and assessing Canada’s terrestrial C cycle.
Bo Qu, Alexandre Roy, Joe R. Melton, Jennifer L. Baltzer, Youngryel Ryu, Matteo Detto, and Oliver Sonnentag
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1167, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1167, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Accurately simulating photosynthesis and evapotranspiration challenges terrestrial biosphere models across North America’s boreal biome, in part due to uncertain representation of the maximum rate of photosynthetic carboxylation (Vcmax). This study used forest stand scale observations in an optimization framework to improve Vcmax values for representative vegetation types. Several stand characteristics well explained spatial Vcmax variability and were useful to improve boreal forest modelling.
Libo Wang, Vivek K. Arora, Paul Bartlett, Ed Chan, and Salvatore R. Curasi
Biogeosciences, 20, 2265–2282, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2265-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2265-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Plant functional types (PFTs) are groups of plant species used to represent vegetation distribution in land surface models. There are large uncertainties associated with existing methods for mapping land cover datasets to PFTs. This study demonstrates how fine-resolution tree cover fraction and land cover datasets can be used to inform the PFT mapping process and reduce the uncertainties. The proposed largely objective method makes it easier to implement new land cover products in models.
R. Scott Winton, Silvia López-Casas, Daniel Valencia-Rodríguez, Camilo Bernal-Forero, Juliana Delgado, Bernhard Wehrli, and Luz Jiménez-Segura
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1493–1505, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1493-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1493-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Dams are an important and rapidly growing means of energy generation in the Tropical Andes of South America. To assess the impacts of dams in the region, we assessed differences in the upstream and downstream water quality of all hydropower dams in Colombia. We found evidence of substantial dam-induced changes in water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration and suspended sediments. Dam-induced changes in Colombian waters violate regulations and are likely impacting aquatic life.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2021 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Lina Teckentrup, Martin G. De Kauwe, Andrew J. Pitman, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Anthony P. Walker, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 18, 5639–5668, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Australian continent is included in global assessments of the carbon cycle such as the global carbon budget, yet the performance of dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) over Australia has rarely been evaluated. We assessed simulations by an ensemble of dynamic global vegetation models over Australia and highlighted a number of key areas that lead to model divergence on both short (inter-annual) and long (decadal) timescales.
Claude-Michel Nzotungicimpaye, Kirsten Zickfeld, Andrew H. MacDougall, Joe R. Melton, Claire C. Treat, Michael Eby, and Lance F. W. Lesack
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6215–6240, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6215-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6215-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we describe a new wetland methane model (WETMETH) developed for use in Earth system models. WETMETH consists of simple formulations to represent methane production and oxidation in wetlands. We also present an evaluation of the model performance as embedded in the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model (UVic ESCM). WETMETH is capable of reproducing mean annual methane emissions consistent with present-day estimates from the regional to the global scale.
Gesa Meyer, Elyn R. Humphreys, Joe R. Melton, Alex J. Cannon, and Peter M. Lafleur
Biogeosciences, 18, 3263–3283, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3263-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3263-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Shrub and sedge plant functional types (PFTs) were incorporated in the land surface component of the Canadian Earth System Model to improve representation of Arctic tundra ecosystems. Evaluated against 14 years of non-winter measurements, the magnitude and seasonality of carbon dioxide and energy fluxes at a Canadian dwarf-shrub tundra site were better captured by the shrub PFTs than by previously used grass and tree PFTs. Model simulations showed the tundra site to be an annual net CO2 source.
Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Tammas Loughran, Kerstin Hartung, Ana Bastos, Felix Havermann, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Daniel S. Goll, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Benjamin Poulter, Stephen Sitch, Michael O. Sullivan, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Soenke Zaehle, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 635–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We provide the first spatio-temporally explicit comparison of different model-derived fluxes from land use and land cover changes (fLULCCs) by using the TRENDY v8 dynamic global vegetation models used in the 2019 global carbon budget. We find huge regional fLULCC differences resulting from environmental assumptions, simulated periods, and the timing of land use and land cover changes, and we argue for a method consistent across time and space and for carefully choosing the accounting period.
Zichong Chen, Junjie Liu, Daven K. Henze, Deborah N. Huntzinger, Kelley C. Wells, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Emilie Joetzjer, Vladislav Bastrikov, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Hanqin Tian, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Scot M. Miller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6663–6680, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) satellite observes atmospheric CO2 globally. We use a multiple regression and inverse model to quantify the relationships between OCO-2 and environmental drivers within individual years for 2015–2018 and within seven global biomes. Our results point to limitations of current space-based observations for inferring environmental relationships but also indicate the potential to inform key relationships that are very uncertain in process-based models.
Christian Seiler, Joe R. Melton, Vivek K. Arora, and Libo Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2371–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2371-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates how well the CLASSIC land surface model reproduces the energy, water, and carbon cycle when compared against a wide range of global observations. Special attention is paid to how uncertainties in the data used to drive and evaluate the model affect model skill. Our results show the importance of incorporating uncertainties when evaluating land surface models and that failing to do so may potentially misguide future model development.
Cited articles
Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A., and Hegewisch, K. C.:
TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and
climatic water balance from 1958–2015, Sci. Data, 5, 170191,
https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.191, 2018. a, b, c, d
Adame, M. F., Kauffman, J. B., Medina, I., Gamboa, J. N., Torres, O., Caamal,
J. P., Reza, M., and Herrera-Silveira, J. A.: Carbon stocks of tropical
coastal wetlands within the karstic landscape of the Mexican Caribbean, PLoS
One, 8, e56569, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056569, 2013. a
Aitkenhead, M. J. and Coull, M. C.: Mapping soil profile depth, bulk density
and carbon stock in Scotland using remote sensing and spatial covariates,
Eur. J. Soil Sci., https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12916, 2019. a, b, c
Alin, A.: Multicollinearity, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat., 2,
370–374, https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.84, 2010. a
Anda, M., Ritung, S., Suryani, E., Sukarman, Hikmat, M., Yatno, E., Mulyani,
A., Subandiono, R. E., Suratman, and Husnain: Revisiting tropical
peatlands in Indonesia: Semi-detailed mapping, extent and depth distribution
assessment, Geoderma, 402, 115235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115235,
2021. a
Arora, V. K., Melton, J. R., and Plummer, D.: An assessment of natural methane fluxes simulated by the CLASS-CTEM model, Biogeosciences, 15, 4683–4709, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4683-2018, 2018. a
Bechtold, M., De Lannoy, G. J. M., Koster, R. D., Reichle, R. H., Mahanama,
S. P., Bleuten, W., Bourgault, M. A., Brümmer, C., Burdun, I., Desai, A. R.,
Devito, K., Grünwald, T., Grygoruk, M., Humphreys, E. R., Klatt, J.,
Kurbatova, J., Lohila, A., Munir, T. M., Nilsson, M. B., Price, J. S., Röhl,
M., Schneider, A., and Tiemeyer, B.: PEAT–CLSM: A Specific Treatment of
Peatland Hydrology in the NASA Catchment Land Surface Model, J. Adv. Model.
Earth Sy., 11, 2130–2162, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001574, 2019. a
Bergstra, J., Komer, B., Eliasmith, C., Yamins, D., and Cox, D. D.: Hyperopt: a
Python library for model selection and hyperparameter optimization, Comput. Sci. Discov., 8, 014008,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1749-4699/8/1/014008, 2015. a
Beven, K. J. and Kirkby, M. J.: A physically based, variable contributing area
model of basin hydrology, Hydrol. Sci. Bull., 24, 43–69,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667909491834, 1979. a
Bohn, T. J., Melton, J. R., Ito, A., Kleinen, T., Spahni, R., Stocker, B. D., Zhang, B., Zhu, X., Schroeder, R., Glagolev, M. V., Maksyutov, S., Brovkin, V., Chen, G., Denisov, S. N., Eliseev, A. V., Gallego-Sala, A., McDonald, K. C., Rawlins, M. A., Riley, W. J., Subin, Z. M., Tian, H., Zhuang, Q., and Kaplan, J. O.: WETCHIMP-WSL: intercomparison of wetland methane emissions models over West Siberia, Biogeosciences, 12, 3321–3349, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-3321-2015, 2015. a
Bourgeau-Chavez, L. L., Grelik, S. L., Battaglia, M. J., Leisman, D. J.,
Chimner, R. A., Hribljan, J. A., Lilleskov, E. A., Draper, F. C., Zutta,
B. R., Hergoualc'h, K., Bhomia, R. K., and Lähteenoja, O.: Advances in
Amazonian Peatland Discrimination With Multi-Temporal PALSAR Refines
Estimates of Peatland Distribution, C Stocks and Deforestation, Front. Earth
Sci. Chin., 9, 1019, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.676748, 2021. a
Connolly, J. and Holden, N. M.: Mapping peat soils in Ireland: updating the
derived Irish peat map, Ir. Geogr., 42, 343–352,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00750770903407989, 2009. a, b, c
Dargie, G. C., Lewis, S. L., Lawson, I. T., Mitchard, E. T. A., Page, S. E.,
Bocko, Y. E., and Ifo, S. A.: Age, extent and carbon storage of the central
Congo Basin peatland complex, Nature, 542, 86–90, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21048, 2017. a, b, c, d
Didan, K. and Barreto, A.: VIIRS/NPP Vegetation Indices 16-Day L3 Global 500m
SIN Grid V001, USGS, https://doi.org/10.5067/VIIRS/VNP13A1.001, 2018. a, b
Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G.,
Marquéz, J. R. G., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitão, P. J.,
Münkemüller, T., McClean, C., Osborne, P. E., Reineking, B., Schröder, B.,
Skidmore, A. K., Zurell, D., and Lautenbach, S.: Collinearity: a review of
methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance,
Ecography, 36, 27–46, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x, 2013. a, b
Draper, F. C., Roucoux, K. H., Lawson, I. T., Mitchard, E. T. A., Coronado, E.
N. H., Lähteenoja, O., Montenegro, L. T., Sandoval, E. V., Zaráte, R., and
Baker, T. R.: The distribution and amount of carbon in the largest peatland
complex in Amazonia, Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 124017, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124017, 2014. a, b, c
Friedl, M., Gray, J., and Sulla-Menashe, D.: MCD12Q2 MODIS/Terra+Aqua Land
Cover Dynamics Yearly L3 Global 500m SIN Grid V006,
https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MCD12Q2.006 (last access: 4 September 2020), 2019. a, b, c
GDAL/OGR contributors: GDAL/OGR Geospatial Data Abstraction software
Library, Open Source Geospatial Foundation, https://gdal.org (last access: 28 December 2020),
2021. a
Gelinas, N.: Into the Okavango, USA,
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/projects/okavango/ (last access: 11 October 2021), 2018. a
Glass, R. L.: Alaska Wetland Resources, Tech. Rep. 2425, U.S. Geological
Survey, Water-Supply Paper 2425, 1992. a
GLIMS and NSIDC: Global Land Ice Measurements from Space glacier database.
Compiled and made available by the international GLIMS community and the
National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder CO, USA,
https://doi.org/10.7265/N5V98602 (last access: 4 March 2021), 2018. a
Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore,
R.: Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone,
Remote Sens. Environ., 202, 18–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031, 2017. a
Gorham, E.: Northern Peatlands: Role in the Carbon Cycle and Probable Responses
to Climatic Warming, Ecol. Appl., 1, 182–195, https://doi.org/10.2307/1941811, 1991. a, b
Grundling, P. and Grootjans, A. P.: Peatlands of Africa, in: The Wetland Book:
II: Distribution, Description and Conservation, edited by: Finlayson, C. M.,
Milton, G. R., Prentice, R. C., and Davidson, N. C., Springer
Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6173-5_112-1, 2016. a, b
Gumbricht, T., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., Verchot, L., Herold, M., Wittmann, F.,
Householder, E., Herold, N., and Murdiyarso, D.: An expert system model for
mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest
contributor, Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 3581–3599, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13689, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P., and Lister, D.: Version 4 of the CRU
TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset, Sci. Data,
7, 109, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3, 2020. a
Helbig, M., Waddington, J. M., Alekseychik, P., Amiro, B. D., Aurela, M., Barr,
A. G., Black, T. A., Blanken, P. D., Carey, S. K., Chen, J., Chi, J., Desai,
A. R., Dunn, A., Euskirchen, E. S., Flanagan, L. B., Forbrich, I., Friborg,
T., Grelle, A., Harder, S., Heliasz, M., Humphreys, E. R., Ikawa, H.,
Isabelle, P.-E., Iwata, H., Jassal, R., Korkiakoski, M., Kurbatova, J.,
Kutzbach, L., Lindroth, A., Löfvenius, M. O., Lohila, A., Mammarella, I.,
Marsh, P., Maximov, T., Melton, J. R., Moore, P. A., Nadeau, D. F., Nicholls,
E. M., Nilsson, M. B., Ohta, T., Peichl, M., Petrone, R. M., Petrov, R.,
Prokushkin, A., Quinton, W. L., Reed, D. E., Roulet, N. T., Runkle, B. R. K.,
Sonnentag, O., Strachan, I. B., Taillardat, P., Tuittila, E.-S., Tuovinen,
J.-P., Turner, J., Ueyama, M., Varlagin, A., Wilmking, M., Wofsy, S. C., and
Zyrianov, V.: Increasing contribution of peatlands to boreal
evapotranspiration in a warming climate, Nat. Clim. Chang., 10, 555–560,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0763-7, 2020. a
Hengl, T.: Soil property layers from openlandmap.org. All data are available
under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) and/or Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-SA),
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2525663 (last access: 4 September 2020), 2018. a, b, c
Hengl, T. and MacMillan, R. A.: Predictive Soil Mapping with R, Lulu.com,
2019. a
Hooker, G., Mentch, L., and Zhou, S.: Unrestricted Permutation forces
Extrapolation: Variable Importance Requires at least One More Model, or There
Is No Free Variable Importance, arXiv: 1905.03151 (stat.ME), 2021. a
Hope, G. S.: Peat in the mountains of new guinea, Mires Peat, 15, 1–21, 2015. a
Hribljan, J. A., Suarez, E., Bourgeau-Chavez, L., Endres, S., Lilleskov, E. A.,
Chimbolema, S., Wayson, C., Serocki, E., and Chimner, R. A.: Multidate,
multisensor remote sensing reveals high density of carbon-rich mountain
peatlands in the páramo of Ecuador, Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 5412–5425,
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13807, 2017. a
Huete, A., Didan, K., Miura, T., Rodriguez, E. P., Gao, X., and Ferreira,
L. G.: Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS
vegetation indices, Remote Sens. Environ., 83, 195–213,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00096-2, 2002. a
Hugelius, G., Loisel, J., Chadburn, S., Jackson, R. B., Jones, M., MacDonald,
G., Marushchak, M., Olefeldt, D., Packalen, M., Siewert, M. B., Treat, C.,
Turetsky, M., Voigt, C., and Yu, Z.: Large stocks of peatland carbon and
nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
117, 20438–20446, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916387117, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y
IDEAM: Leyenda nacional de coberturas de la tierra: metodología CORINE
Land Cover adaptada para Colombia: Escala 1:100 000, edited by: Martínez Ardila, N. J. and Murcia García,
U. G., Ministerio De Ambiente, Vivienda Y Desarrollo Territorial Instituto De Hidrología, Meteorología Y Estudios Ambientales – IDEAM, ISBN 978-958-806729-2, 2010. a
Izumi, Y., Widodo, J., Kausarian, H., Demirci, S., Takahashi, A., Razi, P.,
Nasucha, M., Yang, H., and Tetuko S. S., J.: Potential of soil moisture
retrieval for tropical peatlands in Indonesia using ALOS-2 L-band
full-polarimetric SAR data, Int. J. Remote Sens., 40, 5938–5956,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2019.1584927, 2019. a
Jackson, R. B., Lajtha, K., Crow, S. E., Hugelius, G., Kramer, M. G., and
Piñeiro, G.: The Ecology of Soil Carbon: Pools, Vulnerabilities, and Biotic
and Abiotic Controls, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S., 48, 419–445,
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234, 2017. a
Junk, W. J.: Amazonian flood plains: their ecology, present and potential use,
Revue d'Hydrobiologie Tropicale, 15, 285–301, 1982. a
Kaplan, J. O.: Wetlands at the Last Glacial Maximum: Distribution and methane
emissions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 3-1–3-4, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013366,
2002. a, b
Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., and Liu,
T.-Y.: LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree, in:
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, edited by: Guyon, I.,
Luxburg, U. V., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R., Vishwanathan, S., and
Garnett, R., 3146–3154, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. a
Kobayashi, S., Ota, Y., Harada, Y., Ebita, A., Moriya, M., Onoda, H., Onogi,
K., Kamahori, H., Kobayashi, C., Endo, H., Miyaoka, K., and Takahashi, K.:
The JRA-55 Reanalysis: General Specifications and Basic Characteristics, J.
Meteorol. Soc. JPN, 93, 5–48, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2015-001, 2015. a
Krankina, O. N., Pflugmacher, D., Friedl, M., Cohen, W. B., Nelson, P., and Baccini, A.: Meeting the challenge of mapping peatlands with remotely sensed data, Biogeosciences, 5, 1809–1820, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-5-1809-2008, 2008. a
Köchy, M., Hiederer, R., and Freibauer, A.: Global distribution of soil organic carbon – Part 1: Masses and frequency distributions of SOC stocks for the tropics, permafrost regions, wetlands, and the world, SOIL, 1, 351–365, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-351-2015, 2015. a
Lähteenoja, O. and Roucoux, K.: Inception, history and development of
peatlands in the Amazon Basin, PAGES News, 18, 27–28,
https://doi.org/10.22498/pages.18.1.27, 2010. a
Landcare Research NZ Ltd: Fundamental Soil Layer – New Zealand Soil
Classification, https://doi.org/10.7931/L10T0 (last access: 4 January 2020), 2000. a, b
Largeron, C., Krinner, G., Ciais, P., and Brutel-Vuilmet, C.: Implementing northern peatlands in a global land surface model: description and evaluation in the ORCHIDEE high-latitude version model (ORC-HL-PEAT), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3279–3297, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3279-2018, 2018. a
Lehner, B. and Döll, P.: Development and validation of a global database of
lakes, reservoirs and wetlands, J. Hydrol., 296, 1–22,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.028, 2004. a
Leifeld, J. and Menichetti, L.: The underappreciated potential of peatlands in
global climate change mitigation strategies, Nat. Commun., 9, 1071,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03406-6, 2018. a
Limpens, J., Berendse, F., Blodau, C., Canadell, J. G., Freeman, C., Holden, J., Roulet, N., Rydin, H., and Schaepman-Strub, G.: Peatlands and the carbon cycle: from local processes to global implications – a synthesis, Biogeosciences, 5, 1475–1491, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-5-1475-2008, 2008. a
Loisel, J., Yu, Z., Parsekian, A., Nolan, J., and Slater, L.: Quantifying
landscape morphology influence on peatland lateral expansion using
ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and peat core analysis, J.
Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 118, 373–384, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrg.20029, 2013. a
Loisel, J., van Bellen, S., Pelletier, L., Talbot, J., Hugelius, G., Karran,
D., Yu, Z., Nichols, J., and Holmquist, J.: Insights and issues with
estimating northern peatland carbon stocks and fluxes since the Last Glacial
Maximum, Earth-Sci. Rev., 165, 59–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.12.001,
2017. a, b, c, d
López Gonzales, M., Hergoualc'h, K., Angulo Núñez, Ó., Baker, T., Chimner, R., del Águila Pasquel, J., del Castillo Torres, D., Freitas Alvarado, L., Fuentealba Durand, B., García Gonzales, E., Honorio Coronado, E., Kazuyo, H., Lilleskov, E., Málaga Durán, N., Maldonado Fonkén, M., Martín Brañas, M., Vargas, T. M., Planas Clarke, A. M., Roucoux, K., and Vacalla Ochoa, F.: What do we know about Peruvian peatlands?,
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),
https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007848, 2020. a
Martín-López, J. M., Verchot, L., Martius, C., and da Silva, M.: Modeling the spatial distribution of soil organic carbon and carbon stocks for the Casanare flooded Savannas, Colombia, EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-1840, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-1840, 2022. a, b
Matthews, E.: Global data bases on distribution, characteristics and methane
emission of natural wetlands: Documentation of archived data tape, NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA, 1989. a
McBratney, A. B., Mendonça Santos, M. L., and Minasny, B.: On digital soil
mapping, Geoderma, 117, 3–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00223-4, 2003. a
McCartney, M., Haeringer, M., and Polifke, W.: Comparison of Machine Learning
Algorithms in the Interpolation and Extrapolation of Flame Describing
Functions, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 142, 061009, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4045516, 2020. a
Melton, J. R., Wania, R., Hodson, E. L., Poulter, B., Ringeval, B., Spahni, R., Bohn, T., Avis, C. A., Beerling, D. J., Chen, G., Eliseev, A. V., Denisov, S. N., Hopcroft, P. O., Lettenmaier, D. P., Riley, W. J., Singarayer, J. S., Subin, Z. M., Tian, H., Zürcher, S., Brovkin, V., van Bodegom, P. M., Kleinen, T., Yu, Z. C., and Kaplan, J. O.: Present state of global wetland extent and wetland methane modelling: conclusions from a model inter-comparison project (WETCHIMP), Biogeosciences, 10, 753–788, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-753-2013, 2013. a
Melton, J. R., Chan, E., Millard, K., Fortier, M., Winton, R. S., Martín-López, J. M., Cadillo-Quiroz, H., Kidd, D., and Verchot, L. V.: A map of global peatland extent created using machine learning (Peat-ML), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5794336, 2021. a
Melton, J. R., Chan, E., Millard, K., Fortier, M., Winton, R. S., Martín-López, J. M., Cadillo-Quiroz, H., Kidd, D., and Verchot, L. V.: Code for `A map of global peatland extent created using machine learning (Peat-ML)' (0.9), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6345309, 2022. a
Meyer, H., Reudenbach, C., Wöllauer, S., and Nauss, T.: Importance of spatial
predictor variable selection in machine learning applications – Moving from
data reproduction to spatial prediction, Ecol. Modell., 411, 108815,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108815, 2019. a
Minasny, B., Berglund, O., Connolly, J., Hedley, C., de Vries Folkert, Gimona,
A., Kempen, B., Kidd, D., Lilja, H., Malone, B., McBratney, A., Roudier, P.,
O'Rourke, S., Rudiyanto, Padarian, J., Poggio, L., ten Caten, A., Thompson,
D., Tuve, C., and Widyatmanti, W.: Digital mapping of peatlands – A critical
review, Earth-Sci. Rev., 196, 102870,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.05.014, 2019. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Olefeldt, D., Hovemyr, M., Kuhn, M. A., Bastviken, D., Bohn, T. J., Connolly, J., Crill, P., Euskirchen, E. S., Finkelstein, S. A., Genet, H., Grosse, G., Harris, L. I., Heffernan, L., Helbig, M., Hugelius, G., Hutchins, R., Juutinen, S., Lara, M. J., Malhotra, A., Manies, K., McGuire, A. D., Natali, S. M., O'Donnell, J. A., Parmentier, F.-J. W., Räsänen, A., Schädel, C., Sonnentag, O., Strack, M., Tank, S. E., Treat, C., Varner, R. K., Virtanen, T., Warren, R. K., and Watts, J. D.: The Boreal–Arctic Wetland and Lake Dataset (BAWLD), Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 5127–5149, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-5127-2021, 2021. a, b, c, d
Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G.
V. N., Underwood, E. C., D'amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison,
J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux,
J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., and Kassem, K. R.: Terrestrial Ecoregions
of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth, BioScience, 51, 933,
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:teotwa]2.0.co;2, 2001. a, b
Page, S. E., Rieley, J. O., and Banks, C. J.: Global and regional importance of
the tropical peatland carbon pool, Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 798–818,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02279.x, 2011. a
Papa, F., Prigent, C., Aires, F., Jimenez, C., Rossow, W. B., and Matthews, E.:
Interannual variability of surface water extent at the global scale,
199–2004, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012674, 2010. a
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel,
O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J.,
Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E.:
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, J. Mach. Learn.
Res., 12, 2825–2830, 2011. a, b
Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N., and Belward, A. S.: High-resolution
mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes, Nature, 540,
418–422, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20584, 2016. a
Peters, J. and Tegetmeyer, C.: Inventory of peatlands in the Caribbean and
first description of priority areas, Tech. rep., Proceedings of the
Greifswald Mire Centre, 2019. a
Pflugmacher, D., Krankina, O. N., and Cohen, W. B.: Satellite-based peatland
mapping: Potential of the MODIS sensor, Glob. Planet. Change, 56, 248–257,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.07.019, 2007. a, b, c, d
Ploton, P., Mortier, F., Réjou-Méchain, M., Barbier, N., Picard, N., Rossi,
V., Dormann, C., Cornu, G., Viennois, G., Bayol, N., Lyapustin, A.,
Gourlet-Fleury, S., and Pélissier, R.: Spatial validation reveals poor
predictive performance of large-scale ecological mapping models, Nat.
Commun., 11, 4540, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18321-y, 2020. a
Prigent, C., Papa, F., Aires, F., Rossow, W. B., and Matthews, E.: Global
inundation dynamics inferred from multiple satellite observations,
1993–2000, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007847,
2007. a, b
Ricaurte, L. F., Olaya-Rodríguez, M. H., Cepeda-Valencia, J., Lara, D.,
Arroyave-Suárez, J., Max Finlayson, C., and Palomo, I.: Future impacts of
drivers of change on wetland ecosystem services in Colombia, Glob. Environ.
Change, 44, 158–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.04.001, 2017. a, b, c
Roberts, D. R., Bahn, V., Ciuti, S., Boyce, M. S., Elith, J., Guillera-Arroita,
G., Hauenstein, S., Lahoz-Monfort, J. J., Schröder, B., Thuiller, W.,
Warton, D. I., Wintle, B. A., Hartig, F., and Dormann, C. F.:
Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or
phylogenetic structure, Ecography, 40, 913–929, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02881,
2017. a, b
Rocha, A. D., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K., and Willemen, L.: Role of Sampling
Design When Predicting Spatially Dependent Ecological Data With Remote
Sensing, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 59, 663–674,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2020.2989216, 2021. a, b
Running, S., Mu, Q., and Zhao, M.: MOD17A3 MODIS/Terra Net Primary
Production Yearly L4 Global 1km SIN Grid V055, MODIS [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD17A3.006, 2011. a, b, c
Schroeder, R., McDonald, K., Chapman, B., Jensen, K., Podest, E., Tessler, Z.,
Bohn, T., and Zimmermann, R.: Development and Evaluation of a Multi-Year
Fractional Surface Water Data Set Derived from Active/Passive Microwave
Remote Sensing Data, Remote Sens., 7, 16688–16732,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71215843, 2015. a
Schulzweida, U.: CDO User Guide, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4246983, 2020. a
Shimada, M., Itoh, T., Motooka, T., Watanabe, M., Shiraishi, T., Thapa, R., and
Lucas, R.: New global forest/non-forest maps from ALOS PALSAR data
(2007–2010), Remote Sens. Environ., 155, 13–31,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.04.014, 2014. a, b, c
Terentieva, I. E., Glagolev, M. V., Lapshina, E. D., Sabrekov, A. F., and Maksyutov, S.: Mapping of West Siberian taiga wetland complexes using Landsat imagery: implications for methane emissions, Biogeosciences, 13, 4615–4626, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4615-2016, 2016. a, b
Tian, J. and Philpot, W. D.: Relationship between surface soil water content,
evaporation rate, and water absorption band depths in SWIR reflectance
spectra, Remote Sens. Environ., 169, 280–289,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.08.007, 2015. a
Touzi, R., Omari, K., Gosselin, G., and Sleep, B.: Polarimetric L-band ALOS
for peatland subsurface water monitoring, in: Conference Proceedings of 2013
Asia-Pacific Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar (APSAR), 53–56,
2013. a
Touzi, R., Omari, K., Sleep, B., and Jiao, X.: Scattered and Received Wave
Polarization Optimization for Enhanced Peatland Classification and Fire
Damage Assessment Using Polarimetric PALSAR, IEEE J. Sel.
Top. Appl., 11, 4452–4477,
https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2873740, 2018. a
Wang, L., Qu, J. J., Hao, X., and Zhu, Q.: Sensitivity studies of the moisture
effects on MODIS SWIR reflectance and vegetation water indices, Int. J.
Remote Sens., 29, 7065–7075, https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160802226034, 2008. a
Wania, R., Ross, I., and Prentice, I. C.: Integrating peatlands and permafrost
into a dynamic global vegetation model: 1. Evaluation and sensitivity of
physical land surface processes, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 23, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003412, 2009.
a
Webster, K. L., Bhatti, J. S., Thompson, D. K., Nelson, S. A., Shaw, C. H.,
Bona, K. A., Hayne, S. L., and Kurz, W. A.: Spatially-integrated estimates of
net ecosystem exchange and methane fluxes from Canadian peatlands, Carbon
Balance Manag., 13, 16, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0105-5, 2018. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Wetlands International: Wetlands International Map of Peatland Distribution
Area and Carbon Content in Sumatera 1990–2002 Wetlands International –
Indonesia Programme & Wildlife Habitat Canada, Tech. rep., Wetlands
International, Bogor, 2003. a
Wetlands International: Wetlands International Map of Peatland Distribution
Area and Carbon Content in Kalimantan 2000–2002 Wetlands International –
Indonesia Programme & Wildlife Habitat Canada, Tech. rep., Wetlands
International, Bogor, 2004. a
Wetlands International: Wetlands International Cadangan Karbon Bawah
Permukaan di Papua Wetlands International – Indonesia Programme & Wildlife
Habitat Canada, Tech. rep., Wetlands International, Bogor, 2006. a
Yamazaki, D., Ikeshima, D., Tawatari, R., Yamaguchi, T., O'Loughlin, F., Neal,
J. C., Sampson, C. C., Kanae, S., and Bates, P. D.: A high-accuracy map of
global terrain elevations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5844–5853,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl072874, 2017. a
Yu, Z., Loisel, J., Brosseau, D. P., Beilman, D. W., and Hunt, S. J.: Global
peatland dynamics since the Last Glacial Maximum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043584, 2010. a, b, c, d
Zender, C. S.: Short communication: Analysis of self-describing gridded
geoscience data with netCDF Operators (NCO), Environ. Model. Softw., 23,
1338–1342, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.03.004, 2008. a
Short summary
Peat-ML is a high-resolution global peatland extent map generated using machine learning techniques. Peatlands are important in the global carbon and water cycles, but their extent is poorly known. We generated Peat-ML using drivers of peatland formation including climate, soil, geomorphology, and vegetation data, and we train the model with regional peatland maps. Our accuracy estimation approaches suggest Peat-ML is of similar or higher quality than other available peatland mapping products.
Peat-ML is a high-resolution global peatland extent map generated using machine learning...
