Narrow but robust advantages in two-big-leaf light use efficiency models over big-leaf light use efficiency models at ecosystem level

Abstract

This study aims to (1) investigate whether two-big-leaf light use efficiency (LUE) models (TL) outperform big-leaf LUE models (BL) by incorporating different gross primary productivity (GPP) responses in sunlit and shaded leaves; (2) explore the robustness of using the leaf area index (LAI), clumping index (Ω) and spherical leaf angle distribution to partition canopies into sunlit and shaded leaves across canopy architectures; (3) identify optimal light response forms in LUE models. To exclude influences of drivers of GPP other than radiation, we collected various formulations of GPP response functions to temperature, vapor pressure deficit, CO2, soil water supply, light intensity and cloudiness index to construct 5600 BLs and 1120 TLs. These models were evaluated at 196 globally-distributed eddy covariance sites from the FLUXNET observational network using the Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE), root mean squared error and Bayesian information criterion. Across all sites, the best big-leaf model (BL*; NSE=0.82) was statistically equal to the best TL (TL*; NSE=0.84). However, daily dynamics in GPP under hot and dry conditions were best described using TL* in 17% of sites, highlighting the local importance in separating sunlit and shaded leaves. Across approaches to represent effective LAI, the best approach relies on using normalized difference vegetation index with a spherical or flexible leaf angle distribution across sites rather than satellite LAI and Ω. We also observed similar performance between non-rectangular hyperbola and reciprocal light response functions across TLs. Models degrade when the maximum LUE is not differentiated between sunlit and shaded leaves, but not when light saturation levels are the same. Despite functional differences, the best five TLs agree in a larger contribution of shaded leaf area to total GPP, resulting from higher LAI and LUE. Overall, these results suggest marginal but robust selection of TL compared to BL.