1
AGU Advances
Supporting Information for
Cropland carbon uptake delayed by 2019 Midwest floods
Yi Yin
1
, Brendan Byrne
2
, Junjie Liu
3,1
, Paul Wennberg
1,4
, Kenneth J. Davis
5,6
, Troy
Magney
1,
7
, Philipp Köhler
1
, Liyin He
1
, Rupesh Jeyaram
1
,
Vincent Humphrey
1
, Tobias
Gerken
5
, Sha Feng
5
, Joshua P. Digangi
8
, Christian Frankenberg
1,3
1
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
2
NASA Postdoctoral Program Fellow, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, CA, USA
3
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of T
echnology, Pasadena, CA
4
Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA
5
Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA, USA
6
Earth and Environm
ental Sciences Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
7
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA
8
Langley Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Hampton, VA, USA
Corresponding author: Yi Yin (
yiyin@caltech.edu)
, Brendan Byrne (
brendan.k.byrne@jpl.nasa.gov
)
Contents of this file
Figures S1 to S
7
Tables S1 to S
2
2
Supplementary Figures
Figure S
1
.
Schematic illustration of the methods used in this study.
TROPOMI SIF
(2019 vs. 2018)
Bottom
-
up
To p
-
down
USDA
census/survey
Environmental Variables
-
precipitation, temperature
-
terrestrial water storage
2019
OCO
-
2 XCO
2
Planting
date,
crop composition
OCO
-
2
SIF
Cross
evaluation
!
NEE
!
CO
2
Forward
transport
model
Possible driving factors
SIF to GPP scaling/
GPP to NEE estimate
2019 ACT
-
America
CO
2
!
CO
2
baseline
CO
2
2018
OCO
-
2 XCO
2
Optimized 2018
NEE
Atmospheric
inversion
Forward
transport
model
compare
consistency
Derive
anomaly
2018 Prior NEE
vs.
3
Figure S
2
.
Seasonal cycle
of climate variables
including cumulative precipitation, mean daily
temperature, and mean daily vapor pressure deficit (VPD)
averaged over areas
with cropland
fractions larger than 25%
in
the Midwest states
. Red lines represent
2019
;
blue lines show
the
climatology of 1979
-
20
18
averages, with shaded areas showing 1
-
sigma standard deviation. Data
from ERA5 reanalysis.
The state masks and cropland fractions are shown in Figure S3.
4
Figure S
3
.
Crop emergence date
from field survey in the 12 Midwest states as reported by
USDA
weekly
.
5
Figure S
4
.
Distribution of estimated diff
erences in GPP between 2019 and 2018
.
T
he 17 states
located in the Midwest and Southern U.S. along Missouri and Mississippi watershed that are
included in the statistics
of this study are shown. T
he crop area density
is also illustrated
.
Figure S
5
.
(a)
C
omparison of 2018 and 2018
growing season SIF
for
Midwest
count
ies
with
cropland fraction larger than 20%
.
G
rowing seasons are defined as values larger than 10% of the
corresponding
2018 peak value
.
(b)
Spatial distribution of predicted yield changes between 2019
and 2018
inferred from growing season SIF
following He et al.,
(
in review
)
.
6
Figure S
6
.
H
istograms of differences
between
OCO
-
2
observations and corresponding
model
led
values using posterior
2018 NEE fluxes
for (a) the temperate northern extratropics and (b) the U.S.
Midwest and downwind areas
. Note
tha
t
the model states are simulated with 2018
and
2019
meteorology
respectively
.
Figure S
7
.
Mean vertical profile
s
of CO
2
anomalies
estimated using bottom
-
up and top
-
down
methods at the sampling track of
ACT
-
America
from
June 9 to July 14.
(a)
Profiles
outside the
croplands,
(b)
within the croplands (35
º
-
47
º
N, 87
º
-
98
º
W), and
(c)
differences between the two
–
illustrating the net signal
removing potential systematic biases of the background
.
The vertical
levels are determined by height
above
the
ground level
.
7
Supplementary
Table
s
Table S1.
SIF
-
based estimates of differences in GPP between 2019 and 2018 in different months for areas
with different cropland density (Unit PgC/month). The State mask for the 17 states included in the analysis
is shown in Fig. S3
All
US
17 States
c
rop
land
<10%
c
rop
land
10
-
30%
c
rop
land
30
-
50%
c
rop
land
50
-
70%
c
rop
land
>70%
Total
c
rop
land
>10%
Apr
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
May
-
0.01
-
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
0.01
Jun
-
0.14
-
0.15
-
0.02
-
0.01
-
0.03
-
0.05
-
0.05
-
0.14
Jul
0.01
-
0.04
0.02
0.00
-
0.01
-
0.02
-
0.03
-
0.06
Aug
0.07
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
Sep
0.08
0.08
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.08
Sum
0.10
-
0.02
0.04
0.01
-
0.01
-
0.03
-
0.03
-
0.06
8
Table S2.
Change
s
in planted area
s
of soybean and corn between 2019 and 2018
as reported by USDA
(
unit:
million acres).
Soy
2018
Soy
2019
Soy
19
-
18
(%)
Corn
2018
Corn
2019
Corn
19
-
18
(%)
Both
Crops
(%)
2018
C3/C4
ratio
2019
C3/C4
ratio
ILLINOIS
10.80
10.00
-
7.4
11.00
10.50
-
4.5
-
6.0
0.98
0.95
INDIANA
6.00
5.40
-
10.0
5.35
5.10
-
4.7
-
7.5
1.12
1.06
IOWA
9.95
9.20
-
7.5
13.20
13.50
2.3
-
1.9
0.75
0.68
KANSAS
4.75
4.60
-
3.2
5.45
6.40
17.4
7.8
0.87
0.72
MICHIGAN
2.33
1.75
-
24.9
2.30
2.05
-
10.9
-
17.9
1.01
0.85
MINNESOTA
7.75
6.90
-
11.0
7.90
7.80
-
1.3
-
6.1
0.98
0.88
MISSOURI
5.85
5.10
-
12.8
3.50
3.25
-
7.1
-
10.7
1.67
1.57
NEBRASKA
5.65
5.00
-
11.5
9.60
10.10
5.2
-
1.0
0.59
0.50
NORTH
DAKOTA
6.90
5.60
-
18.8
3.15
3.55
12.7
-
9.0
2.19
1.58
OHIO
5.05
4.30
-
14.9
3.50
2.80
-
20.0
-
17.0
1.44
1.54
SOUTH
DAKOTA
5.65
3.60
-
36.3
5.30
4.40
-
17.0
-
26.9
1.07
0.82
WISCONSIN
2.22
1.75
-
21.2
3.90
3.85
-
1.3
-
8.5
0.57
0.45
TOTAL
72.90
63.20
-
13.3
74.15
73.30
-
1.1
-
7.2
0.98
0.86