Temporal and spatial analysis of the patterns and controls on carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy fluxes in the Alaskan Arctic tundra

Temporal and spatial variability in the Arctic introduces considerable uncertainty in estimations of the current carbon and energy budget and Arctic ecosystem response to climate change. Few representative measurements are available for land-surface parameterization of the Arctic tundra in regional and global climate models. Continuous measurements of net ecosystem CO 2 exchange (NEE), water vapor, and energy exchange using the eddy covariance technique were conducted in Alaskan wet sedge tundra and moist tussock tundra during the summer seasons (June 1--August 31) from 1999 to 2003 in order to quantify seasonal and spatial NEE, water vapor, and energy fluxes and to assess primary controlling factors which drive the change in the fluxes for the Arctic tundra ecosystems.; At the wet sedge tundra, seasonal variation in energy balance was substantial, indicating ground heat flux (G) was significant during the snow-melt and post-snowmelt periods, whereas sensible heat flux (H) was dominant during the plant growth. During the measurement periods, H was the main energy component comprising 52% of net radiation (Rn), followed by latent heat flux (LE) at 26% and G representing 8% of Rn. The energy balance and evapotranspiration were strongly influenced by the maritime climate that brought cold, humid air to the site.; Warmer and drier conditions prevailed for the moist tussock tundra compared with that of the wet sedge tundra. The wet sedge tundra was a sink for carbon of 46.4 to 70.0 gC m-2 season-1, while the moist tussock tundra either lost carbon of up to 60.8 gC m-2 season -1 or was in balance. The wet sedge tundra showed an acclimation (e.g., over days) to temperature, while the moist tussock tundra illustrated a strong temperature dependence. Warming and drying accentuated ecosystem respiration in the moist tussock tundra causing a net loss of carbon. The contrasting patterns of carbon balance at the two sites demonstrate that spatial variability can be more important in landscape NEE than intra- and inter-seasonal variability due to environmental factors with respect to NEE. Better characterization of spatial variability in NEE and associated environmental controls is required to improve current and future predictions of the Arctic terrestrial carbon balance.