Advances in Meteorology
Volume 2019 (2019), Article ID 1257910, 11 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1257910

Research Article

Effects of Environmental Factors on Ozone Flux over a Wheat Field Modeled with an Artificial Neural Network

Zhilin Zhu1,2

¹Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
²College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Zhilin Zhu; zhuzl@igsnrr.ac.cn

Received 24 January 2019; Revised 11 May 2019; Accepted 22 May 2019; Published 4 June 2019

Academic Editor: Ilan Levy

Copyright © 2019 Zhilin Zhu. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Ozone (O₃) flux-based indices are considered better than O₃ concentration-based indices in assessing the effects of ground O₃ on ecosystem and crop yields. However, O₃ flux (Fo) measurements are often lacking due to technical reasons and environmental conditions. This hampers the calculation of flux-based indices. In this paper, an artificial neural network (ANN) method was attempted to simulate the relationships between Fo and environmental factors measured over a wheat field in Yucheng, China. The results show that the ANN-modeled Fo values were in good agreement with the measured Fo values. The R² of an ANN model with 6 routine independent environmental variables exceeded 0.8 for training datasets, and the RMSE and MAE were 3.074 nmol·m⁻²·s and 2.276 nmol·m⁻²·s for test dataset, respectively. CO₂ flux and water vapor flux have strong correlations with Fo and could improve the fitness of ANN models. Besides the combinations of included variables and selection of training data, the number of neurons is also a source of uncertainties in an ANN model. The fitness of the modeled Fo was sensitive to the neuron number when it ranged from 1 to 10. The ANN model consists of complex arithmetic expressions between Fo and independent variables, and the response analysis shows that the model can reflect their basic physical relationships and importance. O₃ concentration, global radiation, and wind speed are the important factors affecting O₃ deposition. ANN methods exhibit significant value for filling the gaps of Fo measured with micrometeorological methods.

1. Introduction

In an atmospheric column, approximately 90% of total ozone (O₃) exists in the stratospheric O₃ layer and protects Earth’s surface from excessive UV radiation. This category of O₃ is therefore referred to as “good” ozone [1]. However, the troposphere O₃ can negatively affect vegetation tissues, photosynthesis, and crop yields [2]. The tropospheric O₃ mainly results from the in situ photochemical production, and a small portion is transported from the stratosphere [3]. O₃ destruction involves chemical decomposition and deposition on Earth’s surface. The total O₃ deposition can be quantitatively reflected by measured O₃ flux (Fo), and its magnitude and variations can facilitate understanding of the O₃ deposition processes.

The quantitative assessment of the effects of ground O₃ on ecosystem and crop yield loss in a region requires selection of an assessment model and calculation of the corresponding assessment index, and the calculation of assessment indices requires continuous measurement of O₃ concentration or flux [4, 5]. The concentration-based indices do not consider the status of vegetation and ecosystems (e.g., stomatal conductance and leaf area index). Many studies have shown that O₃-reduced yield loss is more closely related to the stomatal O₃ flux [5–7].

Gerosa et al. [8] presented a method of estimating O₃ stomatal flux by partitioning total Fo. Briefly, O₃ stomatal resistance was obtained by converting vapor stomatal resistance (Penman–Monteith approach), and the O₃ concentration near the canopy was calculated using the resistance model, which needs the total O₃ flux. So, measuring total Fo is the first step in estimating stomatal O₃ flux [9]. Fo is usually measured by micrometeorological methods, and the eddy covariance (EC) method is considered the most direct flux-measuring method [8, 10–12]. However, due to a lack of high performance fast-response O₃ analyzers (e.g., it needs to change O₃-sensitive dye often and its sensitivity is unstable), EC-measured O₃ flux has many temporal gaps in the associated datasets [8, 13, 14]. This leads to difficulties in calculating the value of a O₃ stomatal flux-based index using the EC O₃ flux since the effect of O₃ on crop yields results from the accumulation of O₃ damage. Therefore, it is necessary to find a method of filling the gaps in O₃ flux datasets.

The gap-filling methods for ecosystem CO₂ flux have been summarized in the literature [15, 16]. However, there have not been investigations into methods for filling gaps in Fo data. As the controlling factors for O₃ flux are more complex, it is difficult to produce physically based equations to reflect the Fo and environmental variables under any conditions. Although some mechanism-based models (typically a resistance-in-series) have been developed, many parameters must be empirically estimated based on the specific site or type of vegetation [17, 18].

Artificial neural networks (ANN), as an artificial intelligence using machine learning techniques, have been applied for approximation, prediction, classification, modeling, and data gap-filling in many scientific disciplines [16, 19–21]. ANN is able to learn from training data and to represent the nonlinearity between the dependent and independent variables. It is suitable for simulating empirical datasets with complex and nonlinear relationships between variables and dependent variable(s). It is particularly useful when it is difficult to express these relationships using one or more simple equations. Compared to physically based models, ANNs have more success in simulating complex processes with a high precision without any analytical models [22–24]. These attributes make ANNs a good candidate for attempts at filling gaps in O₃ flux data. In addition, a sensitivity analysis can be conducted by analyzing the response curves of the different input variables that are created by fixing all other input variables at a certain value [25, 26]. For gap filling of Fo, ANN modeling is also a practical and simple method [16].

ANN methods have been used widely to model and predict O₃ concentration [27, 28] and CO₂ fluxes [21, 29, 30]. However, the ANN approach has not been used to simulate O₃ flux variation with other factor fluxes or meteorological factors. The objectives of this study are to (1) develop a series of ANN models to simulate the relationship between Fo and environmental variables; (2) determine the optimal ANN model to simulate Fo for interpolation of measured Fo; and (3) analyze the responses and relative importance of different environmental variables to O₃ flux.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site and Observations

The observations were carried out over a winter wheat field at the Yucheng Comprehensive Experiment Station of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (36°50′N, 116°34′E; 28 m a.s.l.; Shandong Province, China). The site is located in the Northwest-Shandong plain, characterized by loamy soil texture and semiarid and warm temperate climate. The experimental site is very flat, and the fetch requirements for EC measurements are met. The study period of the field experiment covered entire growing season of wheat (from 2 March to 6 June 2012).

The ambient O₃ concentration was measured with a slow-response UV absorption-based O₃ analyzer (Model 205, 2B Technologies Inc., USA). The O₃ flux was measured with the eddy covariance method in combination with observations of CO₂, H₂O, and sensible heat fluxes. These variables were measured with a 3D sonic anemometer (CSAT3, Campbell Scientific Instrument, USA) and an open-path CO₂/H₂O gas analyzer (LI-7500, LI-COR Biosciences, USA). The O₃ fluctuation was measured with a fast-response O₃ analyzer developed by Enviscope GmbH [31] (hereafter referred to as ENVI). Micrometeorological and radiation variables measurements include air temperature and relative humidity (HMP45C; Vaisala Co., Finland), wind speed (A100R; Vector Instruments, UK), net radiation (CNR1; Kipp and Zonen, the Netherlands), and photosynthetically active radiation (LI-190SB; LI-COR, USA). All sensors were installed at 2.2 m height. Because of the continuous consumption of organic dye, the sensitivity of the ENVI slowly decreased with time. To maintain high sensitivity in the ENVI, we replaced the organic dye disc every 3 to 4 days. Raw data from the EC system were recorded at 10 Hz, and 30-minute mean data were recorded by a data logger (CR3000, Campbell Sci., USA).

2.2. O₃ Flux Calculation

Since the fast-response O₃ analyzer’s sensitivity is not constant [14], the sensitivity must be calibrated by a slow-response O₃ concentration analyzer. However, it has been shown that the sensitivity can be treated as constant when using a 30 min averaging interval [32]. This means that the ENVI’s output X (in mV) is proportional to the absolute ambient O₃ concentration over a 30 min period. Based on this assumption, the O₃ deposition velocity (Vd), defined as the O₃ flux divided by O₃ concentration, can be calculated by the following equation [33]:

where is the O₃ mass density (or concentration; μg·m⁻³), is the vertical wind speed (m·s⁻¹), and VG is the output signal (mV) of the fast-response O₃ analyzer. The overbar denotes the time average, and the primes indicate the temporal fluctuation of each variable. The O₃ vertical turbulent flux Fo (μg·s⁻¹·m⁻²) between atmosphere and surface is calculated by the following equation:

where xo is the mean O₃ mixing ratio (ppb) measured by the slow-response O₃ analyzer, P is the barometric pressure (N·m⁻²), T is the air temperature (K), R is the universal gas constant (8.314 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹), and Mo3 is the molar mass of O₃ (48.0 g·mol⁻¹).

In practice, all fluxes were calculated by EddyPro® software with a series of corrections. Double rotation was utilized to correct tilt errors [34]. O₃ flux loss caused by time delay was corrected by the maximum covariance method [35]. Only the effect of density variation caused by water vapor on O₃ flux was considered [14, 36]. The more detailed description of observations, calculations, and corrections can be found in Zhu et al. [14].

2.3. Artificial Neural Network Modeling

In a general model, variable(s) and the independent variable can be expressed as one or more analytical expression(s). In contrast, artificial neural networks (ANNs) are capable of recognizing and simulating complex relations without any analytical expression(s) of variables and outputs. The relation is produced by the ANN that has been trained. Although there are many types of ANN (e.g., Hopfield networks and Kohonen networks) and many algorithms to be used to train ANN, the feedforward network (FFN) with backpropagation (BP) algorithm is the most popular and has been used in more than other types of neural networks for a wide variety of problems [26, 37–40]. The feedforward BP networks have a simple structure for simulating complex systems, and its structure is sufficiently robust to simulate many nonlinear systems [27, 41]. Therefore, the BP network was used in the study. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the three-layer BP network. The nonlinear elements or neurons are arranged in successive layers, and the information flows from input layer to output layer through the hidden layers. The number of inputs depends on the model performance, and theoretically, more inputs increase model performance. The hidden layers are another important parameter in a BP network.

Figure 1: Schematic of a three-layer backpropagation artificial neural network.

Because of the complexity of the ANN calculation process, the ANN core algorithms used in this study are adopted from the MATLAB software package. However, the ANN requires a prepared dataset and the determination of parameters. The general steps for the setup of the BP network and parameters are described as follows:

(1)The determination of independent variables (Xi, i = 1, 2, …, n). Although ANNs do not require the specification of dependent variables and independent variables, variables should have a certain relationship in terms of mechanism(s) or variation patterns. Based on the previous studies and observed items, we attempt to build a series of ANN models. These models have different combinations of input variables to determine the most relevant input variables for modeling O₃ flux. The input variables include micrometeorological variables, radiation values, and fluxes.(2)The determination of the number of nodes or “neurons” in the hidden layer. This is related to experience or examinations. In general, this number should be larger than the number of Xi.(3)The generation of a network by training. The training dataset and parameters are the keys to generate a good BP network. The training dataset must be representative and of high quality, and the parameters should be suitable. The training process will determine a set of optimal weights and biases. Although there are different transfer functions, such as linear function and a threshold function [38], sigmoid transfer function is the most popular choice for many studies [40]. This transfer function was also used for the neurons in the hidden layer. Using the MATLAB software package, the weights and biases in the ANN are obtained in an iterative calibration process based on the Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) algorithm. The root-mean-squared error is used to monitor the performance of modeling. Normally, the validation error decreases during the initial phase of training and begins to rise when the network begins to overfit the data. To avoid overfitting, the weights and biases of the network can be automatically saved when the validation error reaches a minimum.(4)The evaluation of the ANN model using training and test datasets. In this study, three statistical parameters, i.e., root-mean-squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R²), were used to evaluate the performance of models. RMSE and MAE present information about the degree of accuracy of an ANN model, and R² measures the degree of the linear relationship between measured and modeled O₃ fluxes.

The three parameters were calculated with the following equations:

where Yi and Fi are the simulated and measured O₃ flux, respectively; the overbar denotes the average of each variables, and N is the sample number.

2.4. Dataset Preparation

To create a satisfactory ANN model, a high-quality dataset is very important. Due to different reasons, all variables, especially the measured O₃ flux, presented many low quality or erroneous data. In this study, the selected data for training and testing satisfy the conditions as follows. Approximately 58.5% of the total data points in the set are low quality or erroneous, and they were filtered using the following metrics.

(1)Only daytime data were adopted. During nighttime, O₃ concentration is generally low and wheat stomata are closed, and the effect of O₃ on wheat can be ignored. Nighttime fluxes also exhibit a significant amount of inaccuracies because of weak turbulence [42].(2)Ozone fluxes are between −40 nmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ and 0 nmol m⁻²·s⁻¹. As O₃ is always deposited downward on the surface, the positive O₃ fluxes represent errors. The initial threshold value of −40 nmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ was empirically determined via the time series of O₃ flux. Moreover, the threshold was variable based on the wheat status. For example, the threshold was set to −20 nmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ in the first stage of wheat. In addition, some rapid spikes of O₃ flux were deemed unlikely based on the underlying mechanisms. These data points were deleted even though they did not exceed the threshold value.(3)The data of all inputs at a time are completed. Some input variables, especially the turbulent fluxes, have errors or gaps due to various reasons. To keep training data consistent, these data were also excluded.

Finally, 1402 data points (41.5% of total O₃ flux data) were used to train and validate all ANN models. Half of the high-quality dataset (701 data points) was selected for ANN training, and the other half of-high quality data were used for the test dataset. According to the MATLAB software manual, the training dataset is randomly divided into three subsets, i.e., the training set, the validation set, and the test set. Their ratios are 70%, 15%, and 15%, and the corresponding data points are 491, 105, and 105, respectively. The training set is used for computing the gradient as well as updating the network weights and biases. The validation set is used to validate the ANN performance, and the test set is used to compare different models.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Input Variables Choice and Its Performances

Although an ANN model is only dependent on the mathematical relations of inputs and outputs, variables that are irrelevant or lack a physical basis should be excluded. Based on equation (1), O₃ flux is the product of O₃ concentration and deposition velocity (Vd). For O₃ concentration, the production and decomposition result from a series of complex chemical and physical processes. The local O₃ concentration variation mainly depends on its precursors (e.g., VOCs and NOx), long-range transport and a subset of environmental factors, such as radiation, temperature, and humidity [43–45]. Vd is affected to a certain extent by atmospheric turbulence intensity and underlying surface conditions, such as wind speed, friction speed, soil moisture, O₃-reactive chemicals, and vegetation status [46–48].

Due to a lack of observations for O₃-reactive chemicals, only some micrometeorological and radiation variables were selected to model Fo variation in this study. The initial input variables for attempting to model Fo include O₃ concentration (), global radiation (Q), air temperature (Ta), relative humidity (RH), wind speed (U), and soil water content (SW). In addition, O₃ flux access to stomata is coupled with the CO₂ flux (Fc) and water vapor fluxes (LE). These two fluxes are also deployed in our attempts to model Fo. Because of the high correlation between the mean diurnal pattern of many variables and time [30], the effect of time (Tm) on the ANN model was also investigated in this study.

To test the dependency of each variable on O₃ flux, the O₃ flux with one variable was first simulated, and then, O₃ flux with different variable combinations were simulated. Table 1 presents the statistics for each variable and variable combinations. For any single micrometeorological variable, the RMSE values exceed 5 ng·m⁻²·s⁻¹ and all R² values are less than 0.4. This means that any single variable cannot accurately model O₃ flux. Among these variables, O₃ concentration and radiation have relatively strong correlations. For other turbulent fluxes (LE, Fc), ANN-modeled Fo values were strongly correlated with Fc and LE, but modeled Fo values were weakly correlated with sensible heat flux (H). This highlights the fact that O₃ flux is mainly affected by the stomata flux, as stomata are the main pathway of LE and Fc. Although these fluxes have similar diurnal patterns, Fc and LE cannot be considered as the driving factors of O₃ deposition. The O₃ deposition process is complex, and changes in the process are mainly driven by many meteorological or environmental factors.

Table 1: Statistics for each ANN model with training dataset and test dataset.

Model
Inputs and combinations
Training dataset
Test dataset

RSME (nmol·m⁻²·s)
MAE (nmol·m⁻²·s)
R²
RSME (nmol·m⁻²·s)
MAE (nmol·m⁻²·s)
R²

T1
Ta
5.391
4.119
0.282
5.578
4.305
0.234

T2
RH
6.251
4.780
0.062
6.252
4.808
0.059

T3
U
5.897
4.495
0.141
5.974
4.558
0.123

T4
Q
5.339
4.044
0.301
5.607
4.226
0.237

T5
SW
6.091
4.589
0.109
6.183
4.683
0.090

T6

5.182
3.836
0.338
5.394
4.015
0.287

T7
H
6.229
4.786
0.040
6.537
4.887
0.009

T8
LE
4.273
3.289
0.551
4.731
3.591
0.461

T9
Fc
5.075
3.678
0.381
5.496
4.035
0.294

T10
Tm
5.817
4.326
0.171
5.831
4.295
0.163

T11
Ta RH
5.205
3.864
0.330
5.365
4.045
0.289

T12
Ta RH U
4.013
3.033
0.604
4.177
3.172
0.571

T13
Ta RH U Q
3.723
2.792
0.659
3.929
2.926
0.621

T14
Ta RH U Q SW
3.569
2.667
0.685
3.752
2.798
0.652

T15
Ta RH U Q SW
2.662
1.971
0.827
3.074
2.276
0.767

T16
Ta RH U Q SW Tm
2.652
1.967
0.829
3.021
2.215
0.783

T17
Ta RH U Q SW H
2.460
1.813
0.855
2.844
2.055
0.805

T18
Ta RH U Q SW LE
2.448
1.812
0.855
2.834
2.079
0.809

T19
Ta RH U Q SW Fc
2.254
1.671
0.875
2.763
1.997
0.814

T20
Ta RH U Q SW LE Fc
2.310
1.662
0.881
2.697
1.917
0.839

To obtain an optimal ANN model, we attempted to build more ANN models with different combinations of input variables. The combinations can be divided into two classes. Class 1 combinations only consist of routine micrometeorological and radiation factors (Ta, RH, U, Q, SW, and ), i.e., models T11 to T15 in Table 1. Meanwhile, we also tested the effect of time (T16). The variables in Class 1 are easy to observe and possess sufficiently high accuracy. The combinations can increase the fitness of observed and ANN-modeled Fo, even if the combination only uses meteorological variables (T12). Class 2 combinations add the turbulent fluxes (H, Fc, and LE) in addition to the variables in Class 1, i.e., models T17 to T20 in Table 1. Although the correlation levels increase slightly in Class 2 models when compared to the models of Class 1, the effect of these fluxes on Fo gap filling is very limited. When there is a gap in Fo data, other fluxes (Fc and LE) often exhibit simultaneous gaps in their observational datasets. Meanwhile, the flux data have lower accuracies than the micrometeorological and radiation variables. Among the two classes of combinations, we select T15 and T20 as examples to analyze their performances as well as the contributions and responses of each variable to O₃ flux.

Figure 2 shows a scatter plot of measured and modeled O₃ fluxes using ANN models T15 and T20 for the training dataset and test dataset. The modeled O₃ fluxes in these two models match the measured O₃ flux to a high degree. There are not obvious deviations from the 1 : 1 line. Although the first model contains only six routine variables (no turbulent fluxes), the model produced an R² of 0.826 and 0.767 for the training dataset and test dataset, respectively. The fitness of model T20 is marginally superior to the fitness of T15. The R² values of T20 are 0.881 and 0.839 for the training dataset and test dataset, respectively. The R² can be interpreted as the ratio of the variances for the modeled flux and the real flux.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 2: Observed versus simulated ozone flux with models T15 and T20, respectively. (a) Model T15 with the training dataset. (b) Model T15 with the test dataset. (c) Model T20 with the training dataset. (d) Model T20 with the test dataset.

3.2. Effect of ANN Schema on the Model Performance

In addition to the selection of variable combinations, the training data quality and architecture parameters also affect the performance of an ANN model. The ANN model can be considered as a black-box, so the performance is strongly dependent on the training dataset quality. Network architecture consists of numbers of layers, number of nodes, and weight calculation method. Generally, greater numbers of layers and nodes produce better performance. However, to avoid overtraining, the ANN training process requires an appropriate learning rate (weight adjustment steps) and a stopping criterion [16].

Compared to other types of statistical models, ANN models are difficult to replicate. Even if the same dataset and parameters are used, there are slight differences in the modeled results between different runs. The results after training vary slightly because the neural network is initialized with random weights. As an example, Figure 3 shows the daily variations of O₃ flux measured on May 12 with EC method and ANN modeled with T15. It is clear that the ANN modeled Fo each run are different, and they are around the measured Fo. To mitigate these uncertainties, we calculated the average of 10 runs with the same variables combinations and parameters to generate the modeled O₃ flux. Table 2 compares the statistics of ANN-modeled Fo with T15. As shown, statistical indicators of 10-run-averaged are better than separate indicators. The RMSE and MAE are the smallest, and the R² is the largest.

Figure 3: Comparison of diurnal variations of ozone flux measured on May 12 with the EC method () and 10-run ANN modeled with T15. Tra_mean is the mean of 10 runs in the ANN model of Fo.

Table 2: Comparison of statistics of Fo values from measurements and the ANN model (T15) in 10 separate runs.

Tra1
Tra2
Tra3
Tra4
Tra5
Tra6
Tra7
Tra8
Tra9
Tra10
T_mean

RMSE (nmol·m⁻²·s)
2.861
2.715
2.829
2.738
2.837
2.798
2.789
2.77
2.754
2.789
2.662

MAE (nmol·m⁻²·s)
2.191
2.078
2.148
2.155
2.174
2.115
2.044
2.135
2.071
2.091
1.971

R²
0.808
0.802
0.802
0.809
0.795
0.798
0.811
0.813
0.819
0.812
0.827

Another problem that arises in ANN modeling is so-called overtraining or overfitting. An overtrained network cannot learn the general traits that exist in the training set, and the network will lose the capacity to generalize. Three important parameters can be used to avoid this phenomenon: the number of hidden layers, the number of epochs, and the number of neurons in each hidden layer. Although these parameters are crucial to a model, there are no definite rules on how to determine them. In the ANN package of the MATLAB software, the number of hidden layers and the number of neurons in each hidden layer can be assigned. To decrease the number of ANN parameters, a feedforward network with one hidden layer and a sufficient number of neurons was used in this study. This satisfies any finite input-output statistical modeling [41]. The optimal number of epochs (iterations) can be determined automatically by the software based on the best performances. Therefore, only the optimum neurons should be determined by testing the performance of an ANN model with different neurons.

Figure 4 shows the variations of MAE, RMSE, and R² for the models T15 and T20 as the number of neurons change. It can be seen that the MAE and RMSE of the two ANN models rapidly decrease when the number of neurons changes from 1 to 10, and then the variations are slower and more stable. The minima for MAE and RMSE appeared when there were 17 neurons. The performance of R² is similar (Figures 4(b) and 4(d)). Therefore, the number 17 was determined to be the optimal neuron number for the hidden layer in our analysis.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 4: Variations of MAE, RMSE, and R² for the models T15 and T20 with different numbers of neurons.

3.3. Response of Fo to Variables Based on ANN Models

All parameters of an ANN model are fixed once training is finished. The responses of an ANN model can be evaluated by varying a single variable within its measured range and keeping other inputs fixed at their mean values [30, 37]. Figure 5 demonstrates the details of how O₃ flux varies across the range of all variables within models T15 and T20. The ranges (minimum and maximum) and mean values of each input variables in the training dataset are given in Table 3.

(a)

(b)

Figure 5: Responses and relative importance of each variable in the ANN models T15 and T20.

Table 3: Input parameters and their ranges for different models.

Variable
Unit
Min
Max
Mean

Air temperature (Ta)
C
−5.4
30.6
12.6

Relative humidity (RH)
%
14
100
57

Wind speed (U)
m·s⁻¹
0
7.2
3.6

Ozone concentration ()
Ppb
1.0
124.2
62.6

Global radiation (Q)
W·m⁻²
0
924
462

Sensible heat flux (H)
W·m⁻²
−100
300
100

Latent heat flux (LE)
W·m⁻²
0
560
280

CO₂ flux (Fc)
mg·m²·s⁻¹
−2.2
0.2
−1.0

By excluding the effects of turbulent fluxes, the effect of each environmental variable on Fo can be seen more clearly (Figure 5(a)). Positive responses between O₃ concentration, temperature, solar radiation, and relative humidity are shown clearly. After considering the effects of turbulent fluxes (Figure 5(b)), the responses of Fc and LE are very obvious, whereas the responses of Ta, RH, and SW are very weak. Moreover, O₃ flux shows a unidirectional variation with most variables, such as O₃ concentration, wind speed, temperature, and humidity. Nevertheless, the variation of Fo with soil water content (SW) shows a different pattern (Figure 5(a)). O₃ deposition decreased when soil water content was too high or too low. The results might be unreliable and should be explained carefully. One possible reason for this pattern is that the change in soil water content is slow over the course of a day and there is no clear diurnal variation. The response of SW and Fo in the ANN models mainly reflects the long-term variation of O₃ flux. For other variables, the diurnal variation amplitude is larger than that of long-term variations. A simple expression that relates Fo and the various variables could not be given by the ANNs, as the response of Fo to a single variable may depend on the values of the other inputs. However, the response curves of variables can basically reflect the effect of each variable on O₃ flux.

The response curve can also reveal the importance of each variable [41]. This method is called the “profile method” [25]. In this study, the importance of each variable is described by comparing the variation ranges of modeled values when a variable is varied from its minimum to maximum and other variables are fixed at their mean values given in Table 3. A larger variation in Fo indicates a higher parameter importance. Excluding the effects of fluxes, the order of variable importance in model T15 is as follows:  > U > Q> Ta > RH > SW (Figure 5(a)). O₃ concentration, wind speed, and radiation are the important factors affecting ozone deposition over wheat fields. In addition, to quantitatively reflect the effect of each variable, the relative importance (RI) of each variable was calculated [39, 49, 50]. The RI of , U, Q, Ta, RH, and SW are 26.7, 21.6, 20.6, 12.4, 11.3 and 7.4, respectively.

Using equation (2), it is easy to understand that the ozone concentration is the most important factor affecting ozone flux. Other factors controlling ozone deposition, such as solar radiation, temperature, humidity, and soil water content, have also been studied [47, 51]. Wind speed is another important factor affecting ozone deposition in this study. Although wind speed does not directly result in the increase of ozone deposition, it does enhance atmospheric turbulence. This causes more ozone in the air to enter crop stomata. In fact, radiation indirectly influences ozone deposition by influencing other model inputs. It results in the production of local ozone and leads to the changes in temperature, humidity, wind speed, and other environmental factors.

When considering the effects of fluxes, the order of variable importance in model T20 is as follows: Fc >  > U > LE > Q > Ta (Figure 5(b)). As most CO₂ and water vapor are exchanged via the same pathway of stomata [52, 53], there are strong corrections between Fo and other gas fluxes (Fc and LE). Stomatal uptake might play an important role in ozone deposition. In model T20, the effect of Q on ozone flux becomes small. This might be because the effects of radiation are replaced by these fluxes. In other words, when the effects of CO₂/H₂O fluxes are taken into account, the correlations between Fo and these fluxes are more significant than those between Fo and radiation.

4. Conclusions

Based on the EC-measured Fo and other environmental factors over a wheat field, an artificial neural network method was attempted to simulate the relationships between Fo and environmental factors. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows:

(1)Generally, more input variables can increase the performance of a model. By only using the routine micrometeorological variables of radiation and O₃ concentration, we can create an ANN model to simulate the variation of Fo. The R² of a model with 6 routine independent variables can exceed 0.8 for the training dataset and test dataset. CO₂ flux and water vapor flux have strong corrections to Fo, and they can improve the fitness of the ANN models when they are considered as independent variables.(2)In addition to variable combinations and training data, the model parameters (e.g., the number of neurons) are also a source of uncertainties in an ANN model. The effect of neuron number on our model fitness (MAE, RMSE, and R²) is obvious when it changes from 1 to 10. Empirically, one hidden layer with 17 neurons produced the best results.(3)The ANN model is composed of complex arithmetic expressions between Fo and independent variables, an optimal ANN model can roughly reflect their inner relationships and relative importance. Global radiation, O₃ concentration, and wind speed are the important factors that affect O₃ deposition. There are strong correlations between Fo and gas fluxes (Fc and LE). The ANN method represents a valuable route for filling the gaps of a time series of Fo during the experimental period with micrometeorological methods.

Data Availability

The MS-Excel data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 41675147) and the National Key R&D program of China (grant number 2017YFC0503801). The author would also like to thank Accdon for providing linguistic assistance during the preparation and revision of this manuscript.

References

R. A. Kerr, “Ozone depletion: a brighter outlook for good ozone,” Science, vol. 297, no. 5587, pp. 1623–1625, 2002.

X. Wang, Q. Zhang, F. Zheng et al., “Effects of elevated O3 concentration on winter wheat and rice yields in the Yangtze River Delta, China,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 171, pp. 118–125, 2012.

P. J. Crutzen, M. G. Lawrence, and U. Poschl, “On the background photochemistry of tropospheric ozone,” Tellus A, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 123–146, 1999.

W. J. Massman, “Toward an ozone standard to protect vegetation based on effective dose: a review of deposition resistances and a possible metric,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 38, no. 15, pp. 2323–2337, 2004.

E. Paoletti and W. J. Manning, “Toward a biologically significant and usable standard for ozone that will also protect plants,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 85–95, 2007.

R. Musselman, A. Lefohn, W. Massman, and R. Heath, “A critical review and analysis of the use of exposure- and flux-based ozone indices for predicting vegetation effects,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 1869–1888, 2006.

H. Pleijel, H. Danielsson, K. Ojanperä et al., “Relationships between ozone exposure and yield loss in European wheat and potato-a comparison of concentration- and flux-based exposure indices,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 38, no. 15, pp. 2259–2269, 2004.

G. Gerosa, S. Cieslik, and A. Ballarin-Denti, “Micrometeorological determination of time-integrated stomatal ozone fluxes over wheat: a case study in Northern Italy,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 777–788, 2003.

D. Fowler, C. Flechard, J. N. Cape, R. L. Storeton-West, and M. Coyle, “Measurements of ozone deposition to vegetation quantifying the flux, the stomatal and non-stomatal components,” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, vol. 130, no. 1–4, pp. 63–74, 2001.

D. D. Baldocchi, “Measuring fluxes of trace gases and energy between ecosystems and the atmosphere-the state and future of the eddy covariance method,” Global Change Biology, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 3600–3609, 2014.

E. Lamaud, A. Carrara, Y. Brunet, A. Lopez, and A. Druilhet, “Ozone fluxes above and within a pine forest canopy in dry and wet conditions,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 77–88, 2002.

E. Lamaud, B. Loubet, M. Irvine, P. Stella, E. Personne, and P. Cellier, “Partitioning of ozone deposition over a developed maize crop between stomatal and non-stomatal uptakes, using eddy-covariance flux measurements and modelling,” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, vol. 149, no. 9, pp. 1385–1396, 2009.

T. N. Mikkelsen, H. Ro-Poulsen, M. F. Hovmand, N. O. Jensen, K. Pilegaard, and A. H. Egeløv, “Five-year measurements of ozone fluxes to a Danish Norway spruce canopy,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 38, no. 15, pp. 2361–2371, 2004.

Z. Zhu, F. Zhao, L. Voss et al., “The effects of different calibration and frequency response correction methods on eddy covariance ozone flux measured with a dry chemiluminescence analyzer,” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, vol. 213, pp. 114–125, 2015.

E. Falge, D. Baldocchi, R. Olson et al., “Gap filling strategies for defensible annual sums of net ecosystem exchange,” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 43–69, 2001.

A. M. Moffat, D. Papale, M. Reichstein et al., “Comprehensive comparison of gap-filling techniques for eddy covariance net carbon fluxes,” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, vol. 147, no. 3-4, pp. 209–232, 2007.

M. L. Wesely, “Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition in regional-scale numerical models,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1293–1304, 1989.

L. Zhang, J. R. Brook, and R. Vet, “On ozone dry deposition-with emphasis on non-stomatal uptake and wet canopies,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 36, no. 30, pp. 4787–4799, 2002.

M. Aubinet, A. Grelle, A. Ibrom et al., “Estimates of the annual net carbon and water exchange of forests: the EUROFLUX methodology,” Andvances in Ecological Research, vol. 30, pp. 113–175, 2000.

M. W. Gardner and S. R. Dorling, “Artificial neural networks (the multilayer perceptron)-a review of applications in the atmospheric sciences,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 32, no. 14-15, pp. 2627–2636, 1998.

D. Papale and R. Valentini, “A new assessment of European forests carbon exchanges by eddy fluxes and artificial neural network spatialization,” Global Change Biology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 525–535, 2003.

G. R. Balls, D. Palmer-brown, and G. E. Sanders, “Investigating microclimatic influences on ozone injury in clover (Trifolium subterraneum) using artificial neural networks,” New Phytologist, vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 271–280, 1996.

A. C. Comrie, “Comparing neural networks and regression models for ozone forecasting,” Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 653–663, 1997.

J. M. Nicely, R. J. Salawitch, T. Canty et al., “Quantifying the causes of differences in tropospheric OH within global models,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 122, no. 3, pp. 1983–2007, 2017.

M. Gevrey, I. Dimopoulos, and S. Lek, “Review and comparison of methods to study the contribution of variables in artificial neural network models,” Ecological Modelling, vol. 160, no. 3, pp. 249–264, 2003.

J. A. Vrugt, W. Bouten, S. C. Dekker, and P. A. D. Musters, “Transpiration dynamics of an Austrian pine stand and its forest floor: identifying controlling conditions using artificial neural networks,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 293–303, 2002.

Y. Feng, W. Zhang, D. Sun, and L. Zhang, “Ozone concentration forecast method based on genetic algorithm optimized back propagation neural networks and support vector machine data classification,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 1979–1985, 2011.

J. C. M. Pires, B. Gonçalves, F. G. Azevedo et al., “Optimization of artificial neural network models through genetic algorithms for surface ozone concentration forecasting,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 3228–3234, 2012.

H. He, G. Yu, L. Zhang, X. Sun, and W. Su, “Simulating CO2 flux of three different ecosystems in ChinaFLUX based on artificial neural networks,” Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences, vol. 49, no. S2, pp. 252–261, 2006.

M. T. V. Wijk and W. Bouten, “Water and carbon fluxes above european coniferous forests modelled with artificial neural networks,” Ecological Modelling, vol. 120, pp. 181–197, 1999.

A. Zahn, J. Weppner, H. Widmann et al., “A fast and precise chemiluminescence ozone detector for eddy flux and airborne application,” Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 363–375, 2012.

M. Ermel, R. Oswald, J.-C. Mayer et al., “Preparation methods to optimize the performance of sensor discs for fast chemiluminescence ozone analyzers,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1930–1936, 2013.

J. B. A. Muller, C. J. Percival, M. W. Gallagher, D. Fowler, M. Coyle, and E. Nemitz, “Sources of uncertainty in eddy covariance ozone flux measurements made by dry chemiluminescence fast response analysers,” Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 163–176, 2010.

J. M. Wilczak, S. P. Oncley, and S. A. Stage, “Sonic anemometer tilt correction algorithms,” Boundary-Layer Meteorology, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 127–150, 2001.

J. B. Moncrieff, J. M. Massheder, H. De Bruin et al., “A system to measure surface fluxes of momentum, sensible heat, water vapour and carbon dioxide,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 188-189, pp. 589–611, 1997.

E. Webb, G. Pearman, and R. Leuning, “Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 106, no. 447, pp. 85–100, 1980.

C. Huntingford and P. M. Cox, “Use of statistical and neural network techniques to detect how stomatal conductance responds to changes in the local environment,” Ecological Modelling, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 217–246, 1997.

S. Lek, J. L. Giraudel, and J. P. Guegan, “Neuronal networks. Algorithms and architectures for ecologists and evolutionary ecologists,” in Artificial Neuronal Network: Application to Ecology and Evolution, S. Lek and J. P. Guegan, Eds., Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, NY, USA, 2000.

X. Dai, Z. Huo, and H. Wang, “Simulation for response of crop yield to soil moisture and salinity with artificial neural network,” Field Crops Research, vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 441–449, 2011.

G. Zhang, B. Eddy Patuwo, and Y. Hu M., “Forecasting with artificial neural networks:,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 35–62, 1998.

S. Lek, M. Delacoste, P. Baran, I. Dimopoulos, J. Lauga, and S. Aulagnier, “Application of neural networks to modelling nonlinear relationships in ecology,” Ecological Modelling, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 39–52, 1996.

G. Gerosa, R. Marzuoli, S. Cieslik, and A. Ballarin-Denti, “Stomatal ozone fluxes over a barley field in Italy. “Effective exposure” as a possible link between exposure- and flux-based approaches,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 38, no. 15, pp. 2421–2432, 2004.

H. Akimoto, “Global air quality and pollution,” Science, vol. 302, no. 5651, pp. 1716–1719, 2003.

J. N. Cape, “Surface ozone concentrations and ecosystem health: past trends and a guide to future projections,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 400, no. 1–3, pp. 257–269, 2008.

C. Dueñas, M. C. Fernández, S. Cañete, J. Carretero, and E. Liger, “Assessment of ozone variations and meteorological effects in an urban area in the Mediterranean Coast,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 299, no. 1–3, pp. 97–113, 2002.

S. Fares, R. Weber, J.-H. Park, D. Gentner, J. Karlik, and A. H. Goldstein, “Ozone deposition to an orange orchard: partitioning between stomatal and non-stomatal sinks,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 169, pp. 258–266, 2012.

A. A. Turnipseed, S. P. Burns, D. J. P. Moore, J. Hu, A. B. Guenther, and R. K. Monson, “Controls over ozone deposition to a high elevation subalpine forest,” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, vol. 149, no. 9, pp. 1447–1459, 2009.

M. Wesely and B. B. Hicks, “A review of the current status of knowledge on dry deposition,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 34, no. 12–14, pp. 2261–2282, 2000.

A. Alimissis, K. Philippopoulos, C. G. Tzanis, and D. Deligiorgi, “Spatial estimation of urban air pollution with the use of artificial neural network models,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 191, pp. 205–213, 2018.

C. G. Tzanis, A. Alimissis, K. Philippopoulos, and D. Deligiorgi, “Applying linear and nonlinear models for the estimation of particulate matter variability,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 246, pp. 89–98, 2019.

D. Fowler, K. Pilegaard, M. A. Sutton et al., “Atmospheric composition change: ecosystems-Atmosphere interactions,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 43, no. 33, pp. 5193–5267, 2009.

S. Fares, A. Conte, and A. Chabbi, “Ozone flux in plant ecosystems: new opportunities for long-term monitoring networks to deliver ozone-risk assessments,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 8240–8248, 2018.

G. Gerosa, F. Derghi, and S. Cieslik, “Comparison of different algorithms for stomatal ozone flux determination from micrometeorological measurements,” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, vol. 179, no. 1–4, pp. 309–321, 2007.