• Korean Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.29-41
• /
• 2019

Terrestrial Gross Primary Production (GPP) is the largest global carbon flux, and forest ecosystems are important because of the ability to store much more significant amounts of carbon than other terrestrial ecosystems. There have been several attempts to estimate GPP using mechanism-based models. However, mechanism-based models including biological, chemical, and physical processes are limited due to a lack of flexibility in predicting non-stationary ecological processes, which are caused by a local and global change. Instead mechanism-free methods are strongly recommended to estimate nonlinear dynamics that occur in nature like GPP. Therefore, we used the mechanism-free machine learning techniques to estimate the daily GPP. In this study, support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF) and artificial neural network (ANN) were used and compared with the traditional multiple linear regression model (LM). MODIS products and meteorological parameters from eddy covariance data were employed to train the machine learning and LM models from 2006 to 2013. GPP prediction models were compared with daily GPP from eddy covariance measurement in a deciduous forest in South Korea in 2014 and 2015. Statistical analysis including correlation coefficient (R), root mean square error (RMSE) and mean squared error (MSE) were used to evaluate the performance of models. In general, the models from machine-learning algorithms (R = 0.85 - 0.93, MSE = 1.00 - 2.05, p < 0.001) showed better performance than linear regression model (R = 0.82 - 0.92, MSE = 1.24 - 2.45, p < 0.001). These results provide insight into high predictability and the possibility of expansion through the use of the mechanism-free machine-learning models and remote sensing for predicting non-stationary ecological processes such as seasonal GPP.

• Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
• /
• v.39 no.5
• /
• pp.321-327
• /
• 2006

In Korea, there is a growing competitive for water resources between industrial, domestic and agricultural consumer, and the environment as many other OECD countries. The demand on water use is also affecting aquatic ecosystems particularly where withdrawals are in excess of minimum environmental needs for rivers, lakes and wetland habits. OECD developed three indicators related to water use by the agriculture in above contexts : the first is a water use intensity indicator, which is expressed as the quantity or share of agricultural water use in total national water utilization; the second is a water stress indicator, which is expressed as the proportion of rivers (in length) subject to diversion or regulation for irrigation without reserving a minimum of limiting reference flow; and the third is a water use efficiency indicator designated as the technical and the economic efficiency. These indicators have different meanings in the aspect of water resource conservation and sustainable water use. So, it will be more significant that the indicators should reflect the intrinsic meanings of them. The problem is that the aspect of an overall water flow in the agro-ecosystem and recycling of water use not considered in the assessment of agricultural water use needed for calculation of these water use indicators. Namely, regional or meteorological characteristics and site-specific farming practices were not considered in the calculation of these indicators. In this paper, we tried to calculate water use indicators suggested in OECD and to modify some other indicators considering our situation because water use pattern and water cycling in Korea where paddy rice farming is dominant in the monsoon region are quite different from those of semi-arid regions. In the calculation of water use intensity, we excluded the amount of water restored through the ground from the total agricultural water use because a large amount of water supplied to the farm was discharged into the stream or the ground water. The resultant water use intensity was 22.9% in 2001. As for water stress indicator, Korea has not defined nor monitored reference levels of minimum flow rate for rivers subject to diversion of water for irrigation. So, we calculated the water stress indicator in a different way from OECD method. The water stress indicator was calculated using data on the degree of water storage in agricultural water reservoirs because 87% of water for irrigation was taken from the agricultural water reservoirs. Water use technical efficiency was calculated as the reverse of the ratio of irrigation water to a standard water requirement of the paddy rice. The efficiency in 2001 was better than in 1990 and 1998. As for the economic efficiency for water use, we think that there are a lot of things to be taken into considerations to make a useful indicator to reflect socio-economic values of agricultural products resulted from the water use. Conclusively, site-specific, regional or meteorogical characteristics as in Korea were not considered in the calculation of water use indicators by methods suggested in OECD(Volume 3, 2001). So, it is needed to develop a new indicators for the indicators to be more widely applicable in the world.