Abigail G. Sandquist, Stephen P. Good, Gabriel Barinas, Scott T. Allen
{"title":"使用统计模型预测不同植被站点的事件级拦截损失的有效性","authors":"Abigail G. Sandquist, Stephen P. Good, Gabriel Barinas, Scott T. Allen","doi":"10.1002/eco.70050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Understanding evaporation from wet canopies across ecosystems is challenged by its spatiotemporal variability and associated observational challenges. Precipitation and throughfall were measured at 22 sites of the National Ecological Observatory Network using consistent methodologies across diverse climates and ecosystems, providing a novel opportunity to examine the performance of statistical models in predicting interception loss from meteorological and canopy-structure data. We used those data to quantify event-level interception losses and found wide variation; median interception loss of small storms (< 10 mm) was 37.7% (39% inter-quartile range), and of large storms (> 50 mm) was 19.8% (20% interquartile range). We found storm gross-precipitation depth was the most important variable for predicting the amount of interception loss (predicting ~70% of the variation), followed by mean canopy height and air temperature. Storm gross-precipitation depth was also an important predictor of interception loss as a percent of storm depth, but much less variation was explained (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.11, RMSE = 24%). Prediction of percent interception loss improved (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.32 and RMSE = 19%) by including additional meteorological and vegetation structure characteristics in a random forest model. In addition to demonstrating the greater importance of storm traits over vegetation traits in predicting event interception losses, this analysis showed that relationships between storm traits and interception losses differed among sites; these inconsistent relationships across sites limited the ability for any statistical model to perform well in predicting event-level interception losses across sites, which may justify the use of alternative approaches (e.g. process-based models).</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55169,"journal":{"name":"Ecohydrology","volume":"18 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Predicting Event-Level Interception Losses Across Diverse Vegetated Sites Using Statistical Models\",\"authors\":\"Abigail G. Sandquist, Stephen P. Good, Gabriel Barinas, Scott T. Allen\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eco.70050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Understanding evaporation from wet canopies across ecosystems is challenged by its spatiotemporal variability and associated observational challenges. Precipitation and throughfall were measured at 22 sites of the National Ecological Observatory Network using consistent methodologies across diverse climates and ecosystems, providing a novel opportunity to examine the performance of statistical models in predicting interception loss from meteorological and canopy-structure data. We used those data to quantify event-level interception losses and found wide variation; median interception loss of small storms (< 10 mm) was 37.7% (39% inter-quartile range), and of large storms (> 50 mm) was 19.8% (20% interquartile range). We found storm gross-precipitation depth was the most important variable for predicting the amount of interception loss (predicting ~70% of the variation), followed by mean canopy height and air temperature. Storm gross-precipitation depth was also an important predictor of interception loss as a percent of storm depth, but much less variation was explained (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.11, RMSE = 24%). Prediction of percent interception loss improved (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.32 and RMSE = 19%) by including additional meteorological and vegetation structure characteristics in a random forest model. In addition to demonstrating the greater importance of storm traits over vegetation traits in predicting event interception losses, this analysis showed that relationships between storm traits and interception losses differed among sites; these inconsistent relationships across sites limited the ability for any statistical model to perform well in predicting event-level interception losses across sites, which may justify the use of alternative approaches (e.g. process-based models).</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55169,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecohydrology\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecohydrology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eco.70050\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecohydrology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eco.70050","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effectiveness of Predicting Event-Level Interception Losses Across Diverse Vegetated Sites Using Statistical Models
Understanding evaporation from wet canopies across ecosystems is challenged by its spatiotemporal variability and associated observational challenges. Precipitation and throughfall were measured at 22 sites of the National Ecological Observatory Network using consistent methodologies across diverse climates and ecosystems, providing a novel opportunity to examine the performance of statistical models in predicting interception loss from meteorological and canopy-structure data. We used those data to quantify event-level interception losses and found wide variation; median interception loss of small storms (< 10 mm) was 37.7% (39% inter-quartile range), and of large storms (> 50 mm) was 19.8% (20% interquartile range). We found storm gross-precipitation depth was the most important variable for predicting the amount of interception loss (predicting ~70% of the variation), followed by mean canopy height and air temperature. Storm gross-precipitation depth was also an important predictor of interception loss as a percent of storm depth, but much less variation was explained (R2 = 0.11, RMSE = 24%). Prediction of percent interception loss improved (R2 = 0.32 and RMSE = 19%) by including additional meteorological and vegetation structure characteristics in a random forest model. In addition to demonstrating the greater importance of storm traits over vegetation traits in predicting event interception losses, this analysis showed that relationships between storm traits and interception losses differed among sites; these inconsistent relationships across sites limited the ability for any statistical model to perform well in predicting event-level interception losses across sites, which may justify the use of alternative approaches (e.g. process-based models).
期刊介绍:
Ecohydrology is an international journal publishing original scientific and review papers that aim to improve understanding of processes at the interface between ecology and hydrology and associated applications related to environmental management.
Ecohydrology seeks to increase interdisciplinary insights by placing particular emphasis on interactions and associated feedbacks in both space and time between ecological systems and the hydrological cycle. Research contributions are solicited from disciplines focusing on the physical, ecological, biological, biogeochemical, geomorphological, drainage basin, mathematical and methodological aspects of ecohydrology. Research in both terrestrial and aquatic systems is of interest provided it explicitly links ecological systems and the hydrologic cycle; research such as aquatic ecological, channel engineering, or ecological or hydrological modelling is less appropriate for the journal unless it specifically addresses the criteria above. Manuscripts describing individual case studies are of interest in cases where broader insights are discussed beyond site- and species-specific results.