Comparison between two footprint function models applied to the experimental site of Pedras Altas
Keywords:Footprint, Micrometeorology, Superficial flux
AbstractMicrometeorological towers are installed in several regions in order to collect atmospheric data at high frequency for the estimation of micrometeorological parameters and surface flows of energy and mass. The determination of the towers field of view and, therefore, the flow measured at the sensors is defined by the footprint, which is directly influenced by the geometry of the terrain and by the vegetation of the site on which the sensor is installed. In this way, the present work aims to analyze the predominant area of the flow contribution by two different methods of footprint determination: one analytical model and one lagrangian stochastic. The data were analyzed for the micrometeorological station of Pedras Altas, located in the south western region of Rio Grande do Sul. The results show that the stochastic model considers the tower field of view closer than the analytical model, consequently it covers a smaller area.
Kljun, N., Calanca, P., Rotach, M., Schmid, H. (2004). A simple parameterisation for flux footprint predictions. Boundary-Layer
Meteorology, 112(3), 503-523.
Kljun, N., Calanca, P., Rotach, M., Schmid, H. (2015). A simple two-dimensional parameterisation for flux footprint prediction
(ffp). Geoscientific Model Development, 8(11), 3695-3713.
Kormann, R., Meixner, F. X. (2001). An analytical footprint model for non-neutral stratification. Boundary-Layer Meteorology,
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/.
Rannik, Ü., Sogachev, A., Foken, T., Göckede, M., Kljun, N., Leclerc, M. Y., Vesala, T. (2012). Footprint Analysis, Springer
Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 211-261. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2351-1_8.
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.