Field comparison of disjunct and conventional eddy covariance techniques for trace gas flux measurements

被引:18
|
作者
Rinne, J. [1 ,2 ]
Douffet, T. [2 ]
Prigent, Y. [2 ]
Durand, P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Helsinki, Dept Phys Sci, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
[2] Ctr Natl Rech Meteorol, F-31057 Toulouse 1, France
关键词
surface layer flux; eddy covariance; disjunct eddy sampling;
D O I
10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.063
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
A field intercomparison experiment of the disjunct eddy covariance (DEC) and the conventional eddy covariance (EC) techniques was conducted over a grass field. The half-hourly water vapor fluxes measured by the DEC were within the estimated uncertainty from the fluxes measured by the EC. On the average there was a slight overestimation (< 10%) of the fluxes measured by the DEC during the day and underestimation during the night as compared to the fluxes measured by the EC. As this bias does not appear in the simulated DEC measurements it is likely to be due to instrumental problems. The insensitivity of the quality of the fluxes measured by the DEC method to the deficiencies in the gas analysis shows the robustness of this new approach for measuring the surface-atmosphere exchange of trace gases. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:630 / 635
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Disjunct eddy covariance technique for trace gas flux measurements
    Rinne, HJI
    Guenther, AB
    Warneke, C
    de Gouw, JA
    Luxembourg, SL
    [J]. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2001, 28 (16) : 3139 - 3142
  • [2] InnFLUX - an open-source code for conventional and disjunct eddy covariance analysis of trace gas measurements: an urban test case
    Striednig, Marcus
    Graus, Martin
    Maerk, Tilmann D.
    Karl, Thomas G.
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES, 2020, 13 (03) : 1447 - 1465
  • [3] Dealing with disjunct concentration measurements in eddy covariance applications: A comparison of available approaches
    Hoertnagl, Lukas
    Clement, Robert
    Graus, Martin
    Hammerle, Albin
    Hansel, Armin
    Wohlfahrt, Georg
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2010, 44 (16) : 2024 - 2032
  • [4] Field intercomparison of four methane gas analyzers suitable for eddy covariance flux measurements
    Peltola, O.
    Mammarella, I.
    Haapanala, S.
    Burba, G.
    Vesala, T.
    [J]. BIOGEOSCIENCES, 2013, 10 (06) : 3749 - 3765
  • [5] Evaluation and application of an electrical low pressure impactor in disjunct eddy covariance aerosol flux measurements
    Held, A.
    Niessner, R.
    Bosveld, F.
    Wrzesinsky, T.
    Klemm, O.
    [J]. AEROSOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2007, 41 (05) : 510 - 519
  • [6] Evaluation of laser absorption spectroscopic techniques for eddy covariance flux measurements of ammonia
    Whitehead, James D.
    Twigg, Marsailidh
    Famulari, Daniela
    Nemitz, Eiko
    Sutton, Mark A.
    Gallagher, Martin W.
    Fowler, David
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2008, 42 (06) : 2041 - 2046
  • [7] Evaluating the performance of commonly used gas analysers for methane eddy covariance flux measurements: the InGOS inter-comparison field experiment
    Peltola, O.
    Hensen, A.
    Helfter, C.
    Marchesini, L. Belelli
    Bosveld, F. C.
    van den Bulk, W. C. M.
    Elbers, J. A.
    Haapanala, S.
    Holst, J.
    Laurila, T.
    Lindroth, A.
    Nemitz, E.
    Rockmann, T.
    Vermeulen, A. T.
    Mammarella, I.
    [J]. BIOGEOSCIENCES, 2014, 11 (12) : 3163 - 3186
  • [8] True eddy accumulation trace gas flux measurements: proof of concept
    Siebicke, Lukas
    Emad, Anas
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES, 2019, 12 (08) : 4393 - 4420
  • [9] A site-level comparison of lysimeter and eddy covariance flux measurements of evapotranspiration
    Hirschi, Martin
    Michel, Dominik
    Lehner, Irene
    Seneviratne, Sonia I.
    [J]. HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2017, 21 (03) : 1809 - 1825
  • [10] Modelling random uncertainty of eddy covariance flux measurements
    Domenico Vitale
    Massimo Bilancia
    Dario Papale
    [J]. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2019, 33 : 725 - 746