Evaluation of footprint models for fluxes analysis using the Eddy-Covariance technique over small areas
Keywords:Footprint, Eddy-covariance, Flux measurements
AbstractTwo models for footprint calculations are compared employing flux measurements in the planetary boundary layer. The calculations
are based on the analytical models by Kormann e Meixner (2001) [An analytical footprint model for non-neutral stratification.
Boundary-Layer Meteorology 99, 207–224] and by Schuepp et al. (1990) [Footprint prediction of scalar fluxes from analytical solutions of the difussion equation. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 50, 355-373]. The footprint density functions of a flux sensor are determined using eddy-covariance data. Those functions are integrated over surfaces given by quadrangular rectangles, in this case an agricultural field. This work ilustrates the features of each footprint model employing flux measurements with an eddy-covariance system of the SULFLUX network, installed on a agricultural field. Finally, it is presented the model that describes in a better way the flux measurements in small fields.
Foken, T., Leclerc, M. Y. (2004). Methods and limitations in validation of footprint models. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 127(3-4), 223–234.
Garratt, J. R. (1992). The atmospheric boundary layer / J. R. Garratt. Cambridge University Press Cambridge ; New York, URL http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/cam031/91034340.html.
Kormann, R., Meixner, F. X. (2001). An analytical footprint model for non-neutral stratification. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 99(2), 207–224, 0005074v1.
Neftel, A., Spirig, C., Ammann, C. (2008). Application and test of a simple tool for operational footprint evaluations. Environmental Pollution, 152(3), 644–652.
Pasquill, F. (1972). Some aspects of boundary layer description. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 98(417), 469–494.
R Core Team (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,Austria, URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Schuepp, P. H., Leclerc, M. Y., MacPherson, J. I., Desjardins, R. L. (1990). Footprint prediction of scalar fluxes from analytical
solutions of the diffusion equation. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 50(1), 355–373, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00120530.
Vesala, T., Kljun, N., Rannik, Ü., Rinne, J., Sogachev, A., Markkanen, T., Sabelfeld, K., Foken, T., Leclerc, M. Y. (2008). Flux and concentration footprint modelling: State of the art. Environmental Pollution, 152(3), 653–666.
Waldo, S., Chi, J., Pressley, S. N., O’Keeffe, P., Pan, W. L., Brooks, E. S., Huggins, D. R., Stöckle, C. O., Lamb, B. K. (2016). Assessing carbon dynamics at high and low rainfall agricultural sites in the inland Pacific Northwest US using the eddy covariance method. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 218-219, 25–36.
Xenakis, G. (2016). FREddyPro: Post-Processing EddyPro Full Output File. URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=FREddyPro, r package version 1.0.
How to Cite
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.
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.