A Comparison of Two Canopy Radiative Models  in Land Surface ProcessesA Comparison of  Two Canopy adiative Models  in Land Surface Processes

DAI Qiudan; SUN Shufen

doi:10.1007/s00376-007-0421-2

Impact Factor: 5.8

Volume 24 Issue 3

May 2007

Article Contents

Article > ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES > 2007 > 24(3): 421-434

A Comparison of Two Canopy Radiative Models in Land Surface ProcessesA Comparison of Two Canopy adiative Models in Land Surface Processes

1.
State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029,State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029

doi: 10.1007/s00376-007-0421-2

Abstract
References
Related papers
PDF

Abstract:
This paper compares the predictions by two radiative transfer models---the two-stream approximation model and the generalized layered model (developed by the authors) in land surface processes---for different canopies under direct or diffuse radiation conditions. The comparison indicates that there are significant differences between the two models, especially in the near infrared (NIR) band. Results of canopy reflectance from the two-stream model are larger than those from the generalized model. However, results of canopy absorptance from the two-stream model are larger in some cases and smaller in others compared to those from the generalized model, depending on the cases involved. In the visible (VIS) band, canopy reflectance is smaller and canopy absorptance larger from the two-stream model compared to the generalized model when the Leaf Area Index (LAI) is low and soil reflectance is high. In cases of canopies with vertical leaf angles, the differences of reflectance and absorptance in the VIS and NIR bands between the two models are especially large. Two commonly occurring cases, with which the two-stream model cannot deal accurately, are also investigated. One is for a canopy with different adaxial and abaxial leaf optical properties; and the other is for incident sky diffuse radiation with a non-uniform distribution. Comparison of the generalized model within the same canopy for both uniform and non-uniform incident diffuse radiation inputs shows smaller differences in general. However, there is a measurable difference between these radiation inputs for a canopy with high leaf angle. This indicates that the application of the two-stream model to a canopy with different adaxial and abaxial leaf optical properties will introduce non-negligible errors.
- generalized canopy radiative transfer model,
- two-stream approximation model,
- canopy reflectance,
- canopy absorptance
References

[1]	DAI Qiudan, SUN Shufen, 2006: A Generalized Layered Radiative Transfer Model in the Vegetation Canopy, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 23, 243-257. doi: 10.1007/s00376-006-0243-7
[2]	Feng ZHANG, Yadong LEI, Jia-Ren YAN, Jian-Qi ZHAO, Jiangnan LI, Qiudan DAI, 2017: A New Parameterization of Canopy Radiative Transfer for Land Surface Radiation Models, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 34, 613-622. doi: 10.1007/s00376-016-6139-2
[3]	F. Momo TEMGOUA, L. Akana NGUIMDO, D. NJOMO, 2024: Two-Stream Approximation to the Radiative Transfer Equation: A New Improvement and Comparative Accuracy with Existing Methods, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 41, 278-292. doi: 10.1007/s00376-023-2257-9
[4]	LIANG Miaoling, XIE Zhenghui, 2008: Improving the Vegetation Dynamic Simulation in a Land Surface Model by Using a Statistical-dynamic Canopy Interception Scheme, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 25, 610-618. doi: 10.1007/s00376-008-0610-7
[5]	DAI Qiudan, SUN Shufen, 2007: A Simplified Scheme of the Generalized Layered Radiative Transfer Model, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 24, 213-226. doi: 10.1007/s00376-007-0213-8
[6]	Lei Xiaoen, Julius S. Chang, 1992: Numerical Study on Dry Deposition Processes in Canopy Layer, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 9, 491-500. doi: 10.1007/BF02677082
[7]	LI Weiping, LUO Yong, XIA Kun, LIU Xin, 2008: Simulation of Snow Processes Beneath a Boreal Scots Pine Canopy, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 25, 348-360. doi: 10.1007/s00376-008-0348-2
[8]	ZHANG Guo, ZHOU Guangsheng, CHEN Fei, WANG Yu, , 2014: Analysis of the Variability of Canopy Resistance over a Desert Steppe Site in Inner Mongolia, China, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 31, 681-692. doi: 10.1007/s00376-013-3071-6
[9]	DUAN Minzheng, Qilong MIN, LU Daren, 2010: A Polarized Radiative Transfer Model Based on Successive Order of Scattering, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 27, 891-900. doi: 10.1007/s00376-009-9049-8
[10]	Mingyue SU, Chao LIU, Di DI, Tianhao LE, Yujia SUN, Jun LI, Feng LU, Peng ZHANG, Byung-Ju SOHN, 2023: A Multi-Domain Compression Radiative Transfer Model for the Fengyun-4 Geosynchronous Interferometric Infrared Sounder (GIIRS), ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 40, 1844-1858. doi: 10.1007/s00376-023-2293-5
[11]	GUO Xia, LU Daren, LU Yao, 2007: A Simple but Accurate Ultraviolet Limb-Scan Spherically-Layered Radiative-Transfer-Model Based on Single-Scattering Physics, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 24, 619-630. doi: 10.1007/s00376-007-0619-3
[12]	Liu Jinli, Lin Longfu, 1994: Microwave Simulations of Precipitation Distribution with Two Radiative Transfer Models, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 11, 470-478. doi: 10.1007/BF02658168
[13]	Li Yang, Mu Mu, 1996: Baroclinic Instability in the Generalized Phillips’ Model Part I: Two-layer Model, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 13, 33-42. doi: 10.1007/BF02657026
[14]	Tan Zhemin, Wang Yuan, 2002: Wind Structure in an Intermediate Boundary Layer Model Based on Ekman Momentum Approximation, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 19, 266-278. doi: 10.1007/s00376-002-0021-0
[15]	Li Yang, 2000: Baroclinic Instability in the Generalized Phillips’ Model Part II: Three-layer Model, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 17, 413-432. doi: 10.1007/s00376-000-0033-6
[16]	Zihan YIN, Panxi DAI, Ji NIE, 2021: A Two-plume Convective Model for Precipitation Extremes, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 38, 957-965. doi: 10.1007/s00376-021-0404-8
[17]	Efang ZHONG, Qian LI, Shufen SUN, Wen CHEN, Shangfeng CHEN, Debashis NATH, 2017: Improvement of a Snow Albedo Parameterization in the Snow-Atmosphere-Soil Transfer Model: Evaluation of Impacts of Aerosol on Seasonal Snow Cover, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 34, 1333-1345. doi: 10.1007/s00376-017-7019-0
[18]	Yiwen LI, Hailong LIU, Pengfei LIN, Eric Chassignet, Zipeng Yu, fanghua wu, 2024: Quantifying the role of the eddy transfer coefficient in simulating the response of the Southern Ocean Meridional Overturning Circulation to enhanced westerlies in a coarse-resolution model, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES. doi: 10.1007/s00376-024-3278-8
[19]	Zhang Renjian, Wang Mingxing, Zeng Qingcun, 2000: Global Two-Dimensional Chemistry Model and Simulation of Atmospheric Chemical Composition, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 17, 72-82. doi: 10.1007/s00376-000-0044-3
[20]	Yongkang Xue, 1991: A Two-Dimensional Coupled Biosphere-Atmosphere Model and Its Application, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 8, 447-458. doi: 10.1007/BF02919267

PDF

Get Citation+

Export:

Article Metrics

Article Views: 1472 Times

PDF downloads: 1431 Times

Cited by: Times

Proportional views

Manuscript History

Manuscript received: 10 May 2007

Manuscript revised: 10 May 2007

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

A Comparison of Two Canopy Radiative Models in Land Surface ProcessesA Comparison of Two Canopy adiative Models in Land Surface Processes

1. State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029,State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029

Manuscript received: 2007-05-10
Manuscript revised: 2007-05-10

Abstract: This paper compares the predictions by two radiative transfer models---the two-stream approximation model and the generalized layered model (developed by the authors) in land surface processes---for different canopies under direct or diffuse radiation conditions. The comparison indicates that there are significant differences between the two models, especially in the near infrared (NIR) band. Results of canopy reflectance from the two-stream model are larger than those from the generalized model. However, results of canopy absorptance from the two-stream model are larger in some cases and smaller in others compared to those from the generalized model, depending on the cases involved. In the visible (VIS) band, canopy reflectance is smaller and canopy absorptance larger from the two-stream model compared to the generalized model when the Leaf Area Index (LAI) is low and soil reflectance is high. In cases of canopies with vertical leaf angles, the differences of reflectance and absorptance in the VIS and NIR bands between the two models are especially large. Two commonly occurring cases, with which the two-stream model cannot deal accurately, are also investigated. One is for a canopy with different adaxial and abaxial leaf optical properties; and the other is for incident sky diffuse radiation with a non-uniform distribution. Comparison of the generalized model within the same canopy for both uniform and non-uniform incident diffuse radiation inputs shows smaller differences in general. However, there is a measurable difference between these radiation inputs for a canopy with high leaf angle. This indicates that the application of the two-stream model to a canopy with different adaxial and abaxial leaf optical properties will introduce non-negligible errors.

Keywords: