Brett M. Raczka
1 Appendices
2 Table A1. Differences in simulation setup between site-level and regional-level crossover models.
Crossover
Models1
Radiation
site
Temperature
regional
site
regional
Vegetation
site
regional
BEPS
site obs
NCEP
site obs
NCEP
site obs
GLC2000
CLM-CN
site obs
NCEP
site obs
NCEP
site obs
MODIS
CAN-IBIS
site obs
CFS spatial data
DLEM
site obs
NARR
ISAM
LPJ-wsl
ORCHIDEE
N/A
CRU05 (cloud cover
site obs (LW and
derived LW and SW
SW radiation)
radiation)
site obs
CRU, NCEP
CFS spatial
data
Spatial
Resolution
Disturbance
site
Site Synthesis
ancillary data files
Site Synthesis
ancillary data files
regional
none
site
~ 1 km2
prescribed land use,
~ 1 km2
prognostic fire
regional2
site
regional
carbon pools
initialized from
observations or
similar sites, run
from year 1900
~400 year spinup to
initialize carbon pools
0.5o
SPIN UP: 1000 year,
with pre-industrial CO2,
recycle site climate,
TRANSIENT: 100 year
transient CO2 &
recycled site climate
(1901-site data)
SPIN UP: 1000 year, with preindustrial CO2, recycle 19011930 CRU.
TRANSIENT: 106 year
transient CO2 with observed
CRU
0.5o
SPINUP: Looped 1901-1930
climate and 1901 CO2 until
SPIN UP: 2000 years,
recycled site climate,
equilibrium.
TRANSIENT: increasing TRANSIENT: 1930 to present
CO2 from 1850 onward with changing climate and
CO2
1
o
2.8o
site obs
Dynamic
Site Synthesis
ancillary data files
site obs NARR, PRISM site obs
Tian et al.
(2010)
Site Synthesis
ancillary data files
prescribed land use ~ 1 km2
32 km
Loveland & Belward
(1997), Haxeltine &
Prentice (1996)3
Site Synthesis
ancillary data files
prescribed land use ~ 1 km2
1o
Dynamic
None (no fire,
harvest,
management, or
stand age
adjustments)
MODIS UMD5
None (no fire,
harvest,
management, or
stand age
adjustments)
site obs
site obs
Mitchell et al.
site obs
2005
site obs
(daily)
CRU05
(monthly site obs
interpolated (IGBP)
to daily)
site obs
CRU, NCEP
site obs
3
prognostic fire
prognostic fire
crop harvest4
~ 1 km2
~ 1 km2
~ 1 km2
Other
1o
4 1More details of regional model driver data provided in Huntzinger et al. (2012)
5 2Values represent the native (submitted) resolution of the model run. Regional interim synthesis aggregated all regional simulations to a
6
minimum resolution of 1o before analysis was performed.
1
Brett M. Raczka
7
8
9
10
3
11
4
Crop havest assumes 40% biomass is emitted at crop sites.
12
13
5
(http://webmap.ornl.gov/wcsdown/wcsdown.jsp?dg_id=10004_17) to determine the crop areas, (http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/data/vcf/) for all
other vegetation.
Loveland, T.R. and Belward, A.S., 1997. The IGBP-DIS Global 1 km Land Cover Data Set, DISCover First Results. International Journal of
Remote Sensing, v. 18, no. 5, p. 3,289-3,295; Haxeltine, A., and I. C. Prentice (1996), BIOME3: An equilibrium terrestrial biosphere model
based on ecophysiological constraints, resource availability, and competition among plant functional types, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 10(4),
693–709, doi:10.1029/96GB02344
14
2
Brett M. Raczka
15 Table A2. Flux biases (model output – observations) for all sites (gC/m2/yr).
16
annual
NEE
bias
%bias
BEPS
-20
-15
CASA_GFED CASA-Trans CLM-CASA CLM-CN Can-IBIS
138
157
95
116
132
89
115
71
87
85
annual
GPP
bias
%bias
109
10
47
4
-
440
41
-45
-4
annual
Re
bias
%bias
90
10
225
24
-
535
57
71
8
DLEM
145
94
EC-MOD
-38
-24
ISAM
110
71
LPJml
93
60
MC1
181
98
1127
103
-121
-11
7
1
-
327
30
-
-214
-19
-
1259
134
25
3
31
-3
-
420
45
-
-156
-17
-
3
MOD17 NASACASA ORCHIDEE
58
141
11
37
96
7
SIB3
153
99
TEM6
86
79
VEGAS2 All Models
156
99
101
64
666
60
1
0
-357
-36
-337
-31
43
4
677
72
155
16
-271
-30
-181
-19
141
15
Brett M. Raczka
17
Table A3. The overall modeled annual bias (model output-observations) for the 8 regional models using
18
biased shortwave radiation data.
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
All Sites
19
20
1
21
value.
22
*
pos
neg
pos
neg
pos
neg
pos
neg
pos
neg
pos
neg
pos
neg
Bias
NEE
%
143
99
133
34
208
161
34
-55
72
32
67
3
113
34
77
48
74
20
82
56
93
-162
81
26
83
3
78
24
∆*
44
99
47
88
40
64
79
Annual Bias1, SW Radiation
gC/m2/year
GPP
Bias
%
∆
Bias
Re
%
-459
-447
0
376
77
811
146
499
114
515
299
632
-12
353
-316
-348
133
410
284
971
180
444
186
547
366
634
101
387
-22
-21
13
41
30
101
28
68
39
112
57
93
11
42
-28
-24
0
32
6
65
21
72
20
84
41
81
-1
33
-12
-376
-734
-353
-401
-333
-365
∆
33
-277
-687
-265
-361
-269
-285
Bias values are calculated by grouping all model flux data together and calculating one overall bias
The ‘Δ’ value is the difference between the model groupings (positive grouping-negative grouping).
4
Brett M. Raczka
23
Table A4. GPP biases for selected regional models that use shortwave radiation products with known
24
biases.
Regional Models
BEPS
CLM-CN
DLEM
ORCHIDEE
25
26
1
region
site
Δ
region
site
Δ
region
site
Δ
region
site
Δ
ENFT
-319
-898
579
-367
-259
-108
-695
-330
-365
3
-171
174
GPP Annual Bias (gC/m2/year)
DBF CROP ENFB GRASS MISC All Sites
205
-217
180
176
583
109
57
61
-46
-228
5
-217
148
-277
226
404
578
326
-110
-29
353
-87
234
-45
-379
-188
-288
269
541
243
-123
222
-8
48
221
-121
53
-134
129
67
48
-43
-176
356
-137
-20
174
-78
636
811
1044
850
945
666
501 -1063 447
-17
435
163
134
1873
597
868
510
503
Radiation1
Phenology
Photosynthesis
Soil Decomp.
NCEP
Custom LAI
EK
1st order, w/N
NCEP
Prognostic
EK
1st order, w/N
NARR
Prognostic
EK
1st order, w/N
CRU, NCEP
Prognostic
EK
1st order, w/N
Orange shading indicates positive bias and blue shading negative/neutral bias.
27
5
Brett M. Raczka
28
Table A5. The overall modeled annual bias for all regional models presented by respiration formulation.
nitrogen
n/nitrog
nitrogen
DBF
n/nitrog
nitrogen
CROP
n/nitrog
nitrogen
ENFB
n/nitrog
nitrogen
GRASS
n/nitrog
nitrogen
MISC
n/nitrog
nitrogen
All Sites
n/nitrog
ENFT
29
Bias
NEE
%
137
168
106
153
192
235
2
8
44
84
41
65
93
125
73
90
59
84
74
86
6
21
50
86
49
79
63
84
Annual Bias, Soil Carbon Decomp Formulation
gC/m2/year
GPP
∆
Bias
%
∆
Bias
-31
-47
-42
-5
-40
-24
-32
-471
-406
96
79
260
216
302
345
217
290
434
408
95
99
-28
-25
8
7
22
18
44
50
38
50
59
56
9
9
6
-65
17
44
-43
-72
26
-4
-365
-202
173
230
414
440
305
349
264
366
473
473
165
232
Re
%
-24
-14
17
23
44
46
47
53
55
75
72
73
18
25
∆
-163
-56
-26
-45
-102
0
-67
Brett M. Raczka
30
Table A6. Within-site inter-annual correlation for all models.
Annual Correlation1, Within Site
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
ALL SITES
31
32
1
NEE
GPP
Re
-0.03
0.05
-0.21
0.20
0.09
0.20
-0.01
-0.01
0.18
-0.15
0.43
0.32
0.23
0.11
0.02
0.14
-0.03
0.42
0.31
0.17
0.10
All site-model years are grouped into a single data set, then correlation is calculated.
7
Brett M. Raczka
33
Table A7. Within-site annual correlation statistics for crossover models only.
Within-Site Annual Correlation 1 (R-value)
NEE
R
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
All Sites
34
35
1
36
*
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
0.05
0.28
0.01
0.19
-0.21
0.70
0.21
0.32
0.20
0.49
0.19
0.15
0.01
0.25
GPP
∆*
-0.23
-0.18
-0.91
-0.11
-0.29
0.05
-0.24
Re
R
-0.06
0.22
0.10
0.52
-0.14
0.53
0.45
0.59
0.41
0.63
0.25
0.43
0.09
0.46
∆
-0.29
-0.43
-0.68
-0.14
-0.22
-0.18
-0.37
R
-0.25
0.18
0.19
0.30
-0.02
0.51
0.43
0.41
0.33
0.57
0.22
0.28
0.03
0.24
∆
-0.43
-0.12
-0.53
0.02
-0.25
-0.06
-0.21
Correlation values are calculated by grouping all site-model points together.
A negative delta value denotes loss of correlation for the regional runs as compared to the site runs.
8
Brett M. Raczka
37
Table A8. Within-site annual correlation grouped by photosynthetic formulation.
Annual Correlation1, Photosynthetic Formulation
within-site stats
NEE
GPP
Re
R
∆
R
∆
R
∆
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
All Sites
38
39
1
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
-0.03
0.09
0.06
0.24
-0.21
-0.21
0.20
0.32
0.16
0.06
0.22
0.33
0.00
0.09
-0.12
-0.18
0.00
-0.12
0.10
-0.11
-0.08
0.02
-0.17
0.17
0.25
-0.25
0.09
0.42
0.71
0.31
0.47
0.25
0.48
0.10
0.19
0.19
-0.08
-0.33
-0.29
-0.16
-0.23
-0.08
0.00
-0.04
0.16
0.18
-0.07
0.28
0.41
0.65
0.24
0.64
0.19
0.31
0.08
0.17
0.04
-0.02
-0.34
-0.24
-0.40
-0.12
-0.09
Correlation values are calculated by grouping all site-model points together.
9
Brett M. Raczka
40
Table A9. Across-site annual correlation for all models.
Annual Correlation1, Across Site
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
ALL SITES
41
42
1
NEE
GPP
Re
0.11
0.22
-0.13
-0.05
0.05
0.02
0.18
0.55
0.38
-0.48
-0.03
0.51
0.29
0.36
0.44
0.19
-0.44
-0.02
0.58
0.30
0.29
All site-model years are grouped into a single data set, then correlation is calculated.
10
Brett M. Raczka
43
Table A10. Within site annual variability for all models.
Within-Site Annual Variability, Normalized SD1
(σ/σobs)
NEE
GPP
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
ALL SITES
44
45
1
46
model mean.
0.33
0.51
0.38
2.81
0.90
1.75
0.51
0.51
0.69
0.39
2.39
0.62
0.97
0.63
Re
0.23
0.89
1.00
2.03
0.61
0.91
0.56
The modeled standard deviation is normalized with respect to the observations, and calculated from
47
11
Brett M. Raczka
48
Table A11. Within-site annual variability for crossover models only.
Within-Site Annual Variability (σ/σobs)
NEE
σ
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
All Sites
49
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
0.31
0.35
0.63
1.08
0.41
0.52
3.49
2.53
0.97
0.89
1.99
1.75
0.63
0.77
GPP
∆
-0.04
-0.45
-0.11
0.95
0.08
0.24
-0.14
Re
σ
0.73
0.63
1.00
1.39
0.45
0.80
3.31
1.46
0.68
0.83
1.20
1.04
0.86
0.92
∆
0.10
-0.39
-0.35
1.85
-0.15
0.17
-0.06
50
12
σ
0.32
0.34
1.28
1.87
1.19
1.71
2.86
1.86
0.77
0.90
1.29
1.09
0.77
0.93
∆
-0.02
-0.59
-0.52
1.00
-0.13
0.21
-0.16
Brett M. Raczka
51
Table A12. Within-site annual variability displayed by photosynthetic formulation.
Annual Variability (σ/σobs), Photosynthetic Formulation
within-site
NEE
GPP
Re
σ
∆
σ
∆
σ
∆
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
All Sites
52
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
0.27
0.16
0.59
0.29
0.44
0.15
2.75
1.63
0.84
0.27
0.62
0.23
0.62
0.23
0.11
0.30
0.29
1.12
0.57
0.38
0.38
0.45
0.42
0.66
0.60
0.32
0.30
2.16
1.48
0.50
0.34
1.04
0.49
0.61
0.45
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.67
0.16
0.55
0.16
53
13
0.22
0.18
0.89
0.61
0.91
0.53
1.96
1.39
0.57
0.32
1.06
0.42
0.57
0.36
0.04
0.28
0.39
0.57
0.25
0.64
0.22
Brett M. Raczka
54
Table A13. Within-site annual variability displayed by soil carbon decomposition formulation.
Annual Variability (σ/σobs), Soil Carbon Decomp Formulation
within-site
NEE
GPP
Re
σ
∆
σ
∆
σ
∆
nitrogen
n/nitrog
nitrogen
DBF
n/nitrog
nitrogen
CROP
n/nitrog
nitrogen
ENFB
n/nitrog
nitrogen
GRASS
n/nitrog
nitrogen
MISC
n/nitrog
nitrogen
All Sites
n/nitrog
ENFT
55
0.27
0.18
0.59
0.27
0.37
0.17
2.35
2.36
1.16
0.31
1.86
0.76
0.58
0.27
0.10
0.33
0.20
0.00
0.85
1.10
0.31
0.43
0.47
0.74
0.56
0.41
0.24
2.06
2.21
0.55
0.36
1.13
0.76
0.67
0.51
-0.04
0.18
0.17
-0.15
0.19
0.37
0.16
56
14
0.20
0.21
1.01
0.68
1.11
0.52
2.16
1.65
0.69
0.37
1.16
0.70
0.64
0.41
-0.01
0.33
0.59
0.51
0.31
0.46
0.22
Brett M. Raczka
57
Table A14. Across-site annual variability for all models.
Across-Site Annual Variability, Normalized SD1
(σ/σobs)
NEE
GPP
Re
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
ALL SITES
58
59
1
0.51
0.37
0.37
0.90
0.81
0.44
0.97
1.62
0.90
1.50
2.39
0.94
1.12
2.28
1.04
1.78
2.45
1.07
Standard deviation is normalized by observations and calculated from model mean.
60
15
Brett M. Raczka
61
Table A15. Monthly correlation for all models.
Monthly Correlation1
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
ALL SITES
62
63
1
NEE
GPP
Re
0.41
0.63
0.20
0.48
0.40
0.53
0.43
0.77
0.85
0.46
0.82
0.48
0.73
0.70
0.64
0.76
0.55
0.80
0.38
0.64
0.63
Overall correlation is calculated by grouping all site-model data pairs into one single data set.
64
16
Brett M. Raczka
65
Table A16. Monthly correlation for crossover models only.
Monthly Correlation1
NEE
R
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
All Sites
66
67
1
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
0.39
0.46
0.56
0.63
0.00
0.60
0.49
0.61
0.32
0.44
0.46
0.41
0.33
0.55
GPP
∆
-0.06
-0.08
-0.60
-0.11
-0.12
0.05
-0.22
R
0.75
0.83
0.77
0.88
0.31
0.65
0.80
0.88
0.43
0.68
0.75
0.80
0.64
0.82
Re
∆
-0.08
-0.11
-0.34
-0.08
-0.25
-0.05
-0.17
R
0.60
0.70
0.67
0.82
0.44
0.67
0.78
0.82
0.32
0.52
0.66
0.75
0.58
0.72
∆
-0.10
-0.15
-0.23
-0.05
-0.20
-0.09
-0.14
Correlation is calculated from all site–model data pairs in each grouping.
68
17
Brett M. Raczka
69
Table A17.
Monthly correlation grouped by photosynthetic formulation.
Monthly Correlation, Photosynthetic Formulation
NEE
R
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
70
All Sites
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
0.43
0.43
0.66
0.75
0.04
0.52
0.51
0.45
0.38
0.51
0.54
0.61
0.40
0.57
GPP
∆
-0.01
-0.09
-0.48
0.06
-0.14
-0.08
-0.18
R
0.78
0.79
0.85
0.88
0.37
0.59
0.82
0.89
0.47
0.51
0.75
0.69
0.68
0.73
Re
∆
-0.02
-0.03
-0.22
-0.07
-0.05
0.07
-0.05
R
0.63
0.70
0.76
0.78
0.53
0.60
0.79
0.89
0.37
0.42
0.67
0.60
0.63
0.66
18
∆
-0.07
-0.03
-0.07
-0.11
-0.05
0.07
-0.03
Brett M. Raczka
71
Table A18.
Monthly correlation grouped by soil carbon decomposition formulation.
Monthly Correlation, Soil Carbon Decomp Formulation
NEE
R
nitrogen
n/nitrog
nitrogen
DBF
n/nitrog
nitrogen
CROP
n/nitrog
nitrogen
ENFB
n/nitrog
nitrogen
GRASS
n/nitrog
nitrogen
MISC
n/nitrog
nitrogen
All Sites
n/nitrog
ENFT
72
0.39
0.40
0.55
0.72
-0.03
0.43
0.45
0.55
0.27
0.45
0.49
0.61
0.31
0.51
GPP
∆
-0.01
-0.18
-0.46
-0.10
-0.18
-0.12
-0.20
R
0.71
0.78
0.83
0.88
0.21
0.59
0.81
0.86
0.39
0.47
0.73
0.77
0.62
0.73
Re
∆
-0.07
-0.05
-0.38
-0.05
-0.08
-0.03
-0.10
R
0.55
0.68
0.72
0.81
0.41
0.66
0.79
0.83
0.31
0.42
0.64
0.70
0.57
0.68
19
∆
-0.13
-0.09
-0.25
-0.04
-0.11
-0.06
-0.12
Brett M. Raczka
73
Table A19.
Monthly normalized variability for all models.
Monthly Variability1
(σ/σobs)
NEE
GPP
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
ALL SITES
74
75
1
0.90
0.63
0.52
1.82
0.82
1.25
0.69
0.84
0.93
0.66
1.51
0.88
1.48
0.90
Re
0.74
1.28
0.95
1.32
1.15
1.57
0.99
Variability is calculated by grouping all site-model data and observed data together.
20
Brett M. Raczka
76
Table A20. Monthly normalized variablity for crossover models only.
Monthly Variability (σ/σobs)
NEE
σ
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
All Sites
77
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
region
site
1.01
0.87
0.63
0.62
0.55
0.59
1.86
1.26
0.89
0.91
1.37
1.31
0.73
0.72
GPP
∆
0.14
0.01
-0.04
0.60
-0.02
0.05
0.00
Re
σ
1.06
0.77
1.10
0.94
0.76
0.63
1.69
1.29
0.94
0.80
1.68
1.32
1.06
0.88
∆
0.29
0.17
0.13
0.40
0.14
0.35
0.18
21
σ
1.02
0.67
1.77
1.37
1.26
0.91
1.58
1.31
1.31
1.00
1.91
1.41
1.32
0.97
∆
0.35
0.40
0.36
0.26
0.31
0.50
0.34
Brett M. Raczka
78
Table A21. Monthly normalized variability grouped by photosynthetic formulation.
Monthly Variability (σ/σobs), Photosynthetic Formulation
NEE
σ
ENFT
DBF
CROP
ENFB
GRASS
MISC
All Sites
79
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
EK
LUE
0.96
0.80
0.67
0.56
0.60
0.33
2.05
1.53
0.86
0.72
1.40
1.06
0.77
0.57
GPP
∆
0.16
0.11
0.27
0.52
0.14
0.34
0.20
Re
σ
0.89
0.73
0.97
0.84
0.68
0.54
1.64
1.20
0.92
0.79
1.56
1.31
0.95
0.78
∆
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.44
0.13
0.25
0.17
22
σ
0.79
0.63
1.34
1.15
1.01
0.80
1.44
1.04
1.24
0.98
1.65
1.42
1.06
0.86
∆
0.16
0.19
0.21
0.39
0.27
0.23
0.19
Brett M. Raczka
80
Table A22. Monthly normalized variability grouped by soil carbon decomposition formulation.
Monthly Variability (σ/σobs), Soil Decomp Formulation
NEE
σ
nitrogen
n/nitrog
nitrogen
DBF
n/nitrog
nitrogen
CROP
n/nitrog
nitrogen
ENFB
n/nitrog
nitrogen
GRASS
n/nitrog
nitrogen
MISC
n/nitrog
nitrogen
All Sites
n/nitrog
ENFT
81
0.93
0.76
0.67
0.49
0.60
0.35
1.99
1.95
0.89
0.74
1.34
1.13
0.75
0.57
GPP
∆
0.17
0.18
0.25
0.04
0.15
0.21
0.18
σ
0.85
0.90
0.97
0.92
0.70
0.65
1.63
1.66
0.91
0.95
1.60
1.53
0.96
0.92
Re
∆
-0.05
0.05
0.05
-0.04
-0.04
0.07
0.03
23
σ
0.75
0.82
1.30
1.36
1.00
1.00
1.38
1.47
1.23
1.25
1.65
1.72
1.02
1.08
∆
-0.07
-0.06
-0.01
-0.08
-0.02
-0.07
-0.06
Brett M. Raczka
82
Figure A1. Monthly averaged fluxes (gC/m2/month) for all regional models (Canibis excluded). The
83
error bars on the observations are ± 1 sigma values (best and worst-case scenarios) calculated from
84
monthly modeled uncertainty. The dashed lines that bound the average modeled values are ± 1
85
sigma across model variation. The dashed lines are not a representation of model uncertainty.
86
Figure A2. Monthly averaged fluxes (gC/m2/month) for crossover models only (Canibis included).
87
The error bars on the observations are ± 1 sigma values (best and worst-case scenarios) calculated from
88
monthly modeled uncertainty.
89
Figure A3. Monthly averaged fluxes (gC/m2/month) for photosynthetic model formulations (Canibis
90
excluded). The error bars on the observations are ± 1 sigma values (best and worst-case scenarios)
91
calculated from monthly modeled uncertainty.
92
Figure A4. Monthly averaged fluxes (gC/m2/month) for soil carbon decomposition formulations
93
(Canibis excluded). The error bars on the observations are ± 1 sigma values (best and worst-case
94
scenarios) calculated from monthly modeled uncertainty.
95
24
Brett M. Raczka
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
25
Brett M. Raczka
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
Figure A1.
143
144
145
Figure A1.
146
147
26
Brett M. Raczka
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
27
Brett M. Raczka
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
Figure A2.
198
199
28
Brett M. Raczka
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
29
Brett M. Raczka
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
Figure A3.
249
250
251
30
Brett M. Raczka
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
31
Brett M. Raczka
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
Figure A4.
300
32
Brett M. Raczka
301
302
303
304
Figure A5.
305
33
Brett M. Raczka
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
Figure A6.
34