POST-CLOSURE OF THE ENERGY BALANCE METHOD TO EVALUATE OF THE FLUXES OF THE LAND SURFACE MODELS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X20129Keywords:
Energy balance. Eddy covariance. Uncertainty fluxes. Post-closure methods. Combined Method.Abstract
In this work, an analysis of the uncertainty of energy flux resulting from post-closure methods of the energy balance: H Method, LE method and Bowen method for the data observed in native grass area of the Pampa biome, located in Santa Maria, RS, Brazil. From these three methods suggest a new one, which we call the Combined Method. This method takes into account the quality classes of eddy covariance to choose the correct method to be applied. The uncertainties of flux were obtained by the difference between the fluxes corrected by one of the post-closure methods and the raw fluxes. The maximum values of the uncertainties occur during the daytime. Regarding the combined method, the highest percentage of cases resulted in the application of correction by Bowen method, followed by the LE method and with less occurrence Method H. Thus, this method can be considered valid to evaluate the uncertainty of simulated fluxes over land surface models.
Downloads
References
Baldocchi, D.D., Hincks, B.B., Meyers, T.P., (1988). Measuring biosphere–atmosphere exchanges of biologically related gases with micrometeorological methods. Ecology 69 (5), 1331–1340.
Foken, T., Göckede, M., Mauder, M., Mahrt, L., Amiro, BD., Munger, JW. (2004) Post-field data quality control. In: X Lee, WJ Massman, B Law (Editors), Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for Surface Flux Measurement and Analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 181–208.
Foken, T., Aubinet, M., Finnigan, J.J., Leclerc, M.Y., Mauder, M., Paw U, K.T., (2011). Results of a panel discussion about the energy balance closure correction for trace gases. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 92 (4), ES13–ES18.
Leuning, R., van Gorsel, E., Massman, W.J., Isaac, P.R., (2012). Reflections on the surfasse energy imbalance problem. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 156, 65–74.
Moncrieff, J. B., R. Clement, J. Finnigan, and T. Meyers. (2004). Averaging, detrending and filtering of eddy covariance time series, in Handbook of micrometeorology: a guide for surface flux measurements, eds. Lee, X., W. J. Massman and B. E. Law. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 7-31.
Roberti, D. R. ; Tatsch, J. D. ; Oliveira, P. E. S.; Teichrieb, C. A. ; Moraes, O. L. L. de ;Acevedo, O. C ; Zimermann, H. R. SULFLUX - Rede Sul-Brasileira de Fluxos Superficiais e mudança climáticas: resultados preliminares. Sensoriamento Remoto Aplicado à Agricultura: Resultados Projeto SIMTECO. 1ed.Porto Alegre: Evangraf, 2013, v. 1, p. 11-42.
Twine, T.E., Kustas, W.P., Norman, J.M., Cook, D.R., Houser, P.R., Meyers, T.P., Prueger, J.H., Starks, P.J., Wesely, M.L., (2000). Correcting eddy-covariance flux underestimates over a grassland. Agric. For. Meteorol. 103, 279–300.
Webb, E. K., G. I. Pearman, and R. Leuning. 1980. Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapor transfer. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 106: 85–100.
Wilczak, J. M., S. P. Oncley, and S. A. Stage. 2001. Sonic anemometer tilt correction algorithms. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 99: 127-150.
Wilson, K., Goldstein, A., Falge, E., Aubinet, M., Baldocchi, D., Berbigier, P., Bernhofer, C., Ceulemans, R., Dolman, H., Field, C., Grelle, A., Ibrom, A., Law, B.E., Kowalski, A., Meyers, T., Moncrieff, J., Monson, R., Oechel, W., Tenhunen, J., Valentini, R., Verma, S., (2002). Energy balance closure at FLUXNET sites. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 113 (1-4), 223–243.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
