Applied Sciences (Jan 2024)

The Difference between the Responses of Gross Primary Production and Sun-Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence to the Environment Based on Tower-Based and TROPOMI SIF Data

  • Jia Bai,
  • Helin Zhang,
  • Rui Sun,
  • Xinjie Liu,
  • Liangyun Liu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/app14020771
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 2
p. 771

Abstract

Read online

The strong correlation between gross primary production (GPP) and sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) has been reported in many studies and is the basis of the SIF-based GPP estimation. However, GPP and SIF are not fully synchronous under various environmental conditions, which may destroy a stable GPP–SIF relationship. Therefore, exploring the difference between responses of GPP and SIF to the environment is essential to correctly understand the GPP–SIF relationship. As the common driver of GPP and SIF, the incident radiation could cause GPP and SIF to have similar responses to the environment, which may obscure the discrepancies in the responses of GPP and SIF to the other environmental variables, and further result in the ambiguity of the GPP–SIF relationship and uncertainties in the application of SIF. Therefore, we tried to exclude the dominant role of radiation in the responses of GPP and SIF to the environment based on the binning method, in which continuous tower-based SIF, satellite SIF, and eddy covariance GPP data from two growing seasons were used to investigate the differences in the responses of GPP and SIF to radiation, air temperature (Ta), and evaporation fraction (EF). We found that the following: (1) At both the site and satellite scales, there were divergences in the light response speeds between GPP and SIF which were affected by Ta and EF. (2) SIF and its light response curves were insensitive to EF and Ta compared to GPP, and the consistency in GPP and SIF light responses was gradually improved with the improvement of Ta and EF. (3) The dynamic slope values of the GPP–SIF relationship were mostly caused by the different sensitivities of GPP and SIF to EF and Ta. Our results highlighted that GPP and SIF were not highly consistent, having differences in environmental responses that further confused the GPP–SIF relationship, leading to complex SIF application.

Keywords