Search

Over the last decades, the Amazon rainforest has been hit by multiple severe drought events. Here, we assess the severity and spatial extent of the extreme drought years 2005, 2010 and 2015/16 in the Amazon region and their impacts on the regional carbon cycle. As an indicator of drought stress in the Amazon rainforest, we use the widely applied maximum cumulative water deficit (MCWD). Evaluating nine state-of-the-art precipitation datasets for the Amazon region, we find that the spatial extent of the drought in 2005 ranges from 2.2 to 3.0 (mean =2.7) ×106 km 2 (37 %–51 % of the Amazon basin, mean =45 %), where MCWD indicates at least moderate drought conditions (relative MCWD anomaly <-0.5). In 2010, the affected area was about 16 % larger, ranging from 3.0 up to 4.4 (mean =3.6) ×106 km 2 (51 %–74 %, mean =61 %). In 2016, the mean area affected by drought stress was between 2005 and 2010 (mean =3.2×106 km 2 ; 55 % of the Amazon basin), but the general disagreement between datasets was larger, ranging from 2.4 up to 4.1×106 km 2 (40 %–69 %). In addition, we compare differences and similarities among datasets using the self-calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index (scPDSI) and a dry-season rainfall anomaly index (RAI). We find that scPDSI shows a stronger and RAI a much weaker drought impact in terms of extent and severity for the year 2016 compared to MCWD. We further investigate the impact of varying evapotranspiration on the drought indicators using two state-of-the-art evapotranspiration datasets. Generally, the variability in drought stress is most dependent on the drought indicator (60 %), followed by the choice of the precipitation dataset (20 %) and the evapotranspiration dataset (20 %). Using a fixed, constant evapotranspiration rate instead of variable evapotranspiration can lead to an overestimation of drought stress in the parts of Amazon basin that have a more pronounced dry season (for example in 2010). We highlight that even for well-known drought events the spatial extent and intensity can strongly depend upon the drought indicator and the data sources it is calculated with. Using only one data source and drought indicator has the potential danger of under- or overestimating drought stress in regions with high measurement uncertainty, such as the Amazon basin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decades, the Amazon rainforest was hit by multiple severe drought events. Here we assess the severity and spatial extent of the extreme drought years 2005, 2010, and 2015/2016 in the Amazon region and their impacts on the carbon cycle. As an indicator of drought stress in the Amazon rainforest, we use the widely applied maximum cumulative water deficit (ΔMCWD). Evaluating an ensemble of ten state-of-the-art precipitation datasets for the Amazon region, we find that the spatial extent of the drought in 2005 ranges from 2.8 to 4.2 (mean = 3.2) million km2 (46-71 % of the Amazon basin, mean = 53 %) where ΔMCWD indicates at least moderate drought conditions (ΔMCWD anomaly < 25 mm). In 2010, the affected area was about 16 % larger, ranging from 3.1 up to 4.6 (mean = 3.7) million km2 (52-78 %, mean = 63 %). In 2016, the mean area affected by drought stress was similar to 2005 (mean = 3.2 million km2; 55 % of the Amazon basin), but the general disagreement between data sets was larger, ranging from 2.4 up to 4.1 million km2 (40-70 %). In addition, we compare differences and similarities among datasets using the self-calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index (scPDSI) and a rainfall anomaly index (RAI). We find that scPDSI shows a much stronger, and RAI a much weaker drought impact in terms of extent and severity for 2016 compared to ΔMCWD. Using an empirical ΔMCWD-mortality relationship, we calculate biomass losses of the three drought events. We show that eight of ten datasets agree on biomass losses of about 1.8 PgC for the drought years 2005 and 2010, indicating that the more intense drought in 2005 equals a larger total area of the 2010 drought regarding biomass loss. For the 2015/2016 drought event, datasets show a large variability of biomass loss induced by drought stress ranging from 1.3 to 2.7 PgC with a mean loss of 1.8 PgC. Disagreement across datasets increased, (1) when comparing the total area of more severe and extreme drought signals and (2) when comparing spatial drought location across datasets. Generally, only half of the datasets agreed on the location of a drought event. We conclude that for deriving impacts of droughts to the Amazon Basin based on precipitation, an ensemble of datasets should be considered. This is especially relevant when assessing the impact of drought on the Amazon rainforest and its carbon cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding Earth system dynamics in light of ongoing human intervention and dependency remains a major scientific challenge. The unprecedented availability of data streams describing different facets of the Earth now offers fundamentally new avenues to address this quest. However, several practical hurdles, especially the lack of data interoperability, limit the joint potential of these data streams. Today, many initiatives within and beyond the Earth system sciences are exploring new approaches to overcome these hurdles and meet the growing interdisciplinary need for data-intensive research; using data cubes is one promising avenue. Here, we introduce the concept of Earth system data cubes and how to operate on them in a formal way. The idea is that treating multiple data dimensions, such as spatial, temporal, variable, frequency, and other grids alike, allows effective application of user-defined functions to co-interpret Earth observations and/or model–data integration. An implementation of this concept combines analysis-ready data cubes with a suitable analytic interface. In three case studies, we demonstrate how the concept and its implementation facilitate the execution of complex workflows for research across multiple variables, and spatial and temporal scales: (1) summary statistics for ecosystem and climate dynamics; (2) intrinsic dimensionality analysis on multiple timescales; and (3) model–data integration. We discuss the emerging perspectives for investigating global interacting and coupled phenomena in observed or simulated data. In particular, we see many emerging perspectives of this approach for interpreting large-scale model ensembles. The latest developments in machine learning, causal inference, and model–data integration can be seamlessly implemented in the proposed framework, supporting rapid progress in data-intensive research across disciplinary boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding Earth system dynamics in the light of ongoing human intervention and dependency remains a major scientific challenge. The unprecedented availability of data streams describing different facets of the Earth now offers fundamentally new avenues to address this quest. However, several practical hurdles, especially the lack of data interoperability, limit the joint potential of these data streams. Today many initiatives within and beyond the Earth system sciences are exploring new approaches to overcome these hurdles and meet the growing inter-disciplinary need for data-intensive research; using data cubes is one promising avenue. Here, we introduce the concept ofEarth system data cubes and how to operate on them in a formal way. The idea is that treating multiple data dimensions, such as spatial, temporal, variable, frequency and other grids alike, allows effective application of user-defined functions to co-interpret Earth observations and/or model-data. An implementation of this concept combines analysis-ready data cubes with a suitable analytic interface. In three case studies we demonstrate how the concept and its implementation facilitate the execution of complex workflows for research across multiple variables, spatial and temporal scales: (1) summary statistics for ecosystem and climate dynamics; (2) intrinsic dimensionality analysis on multiple time-scales; and (3) data-model integration. We discuss the emerging perspectives for investigating global interacting and coupled phenomena in observed or simulated data. Latest developments in machine learning, causal inference, and model data integration can be seamlessly implemented in the proposed framework, supporting rapid progress in data-intensive research across disciplinary boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comparing model output and observed data is an important step for assessing model performance and quality of simulation results. However, such comparisons are often hampered by differences in spatial scales between local point observations and large-scale simulations of grid cells or pixels. In this study, we propose a generic approach for a pixel-to-point comparison and provide statistical measures accounting for the uncertainty resulting from landscape variability and measurement errors in ecosystem variables. The basic concept of our approach is to determine the statistical properties of small-scale (within-pixel) variability and observational errors, and to use this information to correct for their effect when large-scale area averages (pixel) are compared to small-scale point estimates. We demonstrate our approach by comparing simulated values of aboveground biomass, woody productivity (woody net primary productivity, NPP) and residence time of woody biomass from four dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) with measured inventory data from permanent plots in the Amazon rainforest, a region with the typical problem of low data availability, potential scale mismatch and thus high model uncertainty. We find that the DGVMs under- and overestimate aboveground biomass by 25 % and up to 60 %, respectively. Our comparison metrics provide a quantitative measure for model–data agreement and show moderate to good agreement with the region-wide spatial biomass pattern detected by plot observations. However, all four DGVMs overestimate woody productivity and underestimate residence time of woody biomass even when accounting for the large uncertainty range of the observational data. This is because DGVMs do not represent the relation between productivity and residence time of woody biomass correctly. Thus, the DGVMs may simulate the correct large-scale patterns of biomass but for the wrong reasons. We conclude that more information about the underlying processes driving biomass distribution are necessary to improve DGVMs. Our approach provides robust statistical measures for any pixel-to-point comparison, which is applicable for evaluation of models and remote-sensing products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]