A Multi-Site Analysis of Random Error in Tower-Based Measurements of Carbon and Energy Fluxes

DSpace/Manakin Repository

A Multi-Site Analysis of Random Error in Tower-Based Measurements of Carbon and Energy Fluxes

Citable link to this page

. . . . . .

Title: A Multi-Site Analysis of Random Error in Tower-Based Measurements of Carbon and Energy Fluxes
Author: Davis, Kenneth J.; Suyker, Andrew E.; Munger, J. William; Wofsy, Steven; Katul, Gabriel G.; Ricciuto, Daniel M.; Stoy, Paul C.; Flanagan, Lawrence B.; Richardson, Andrew D.; Hollinger, David Y.; Burba, George C.; Verma, Shashi B.

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Richardson, Andrew D., David Y. Hollinger, George C. Burba, Kenneth J. Davis, Lawrence B. Flanagan, Gabriel G. Katul, J. William Munger, et al. 2006. A multi-site analysis of random error in tower-based measurements of carbon and energy fluxes. Agricultural and Forest Metereology 136(1-2): 1-18.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Measured surface-atmosphere fluxes of energy (sensible heat, H, and latent heat, LE) and CO2 (FCO2) represent the "true" flux plus or minus potential random and systematic measurement errors. Here, we use data from seven sites in the AmeriFlux network, including five forested sites (two of which include "tall tower" instrumentation, one grassland site, and one agricultural site, to conduct a cross-site analysis of random flux error. Quantification of this uncertainty is a prerequisite to model-data synthesis (data assimilation) and for defining confidence intervals on annual sums of net ecosystem exchange or making statistically valid comparisons between measurements and model predictions. We differenced paired observations (separated by exactly 24 h, under similar environmental conditions) to infer the characteristics of the random error in measured fluxes. Random flux error more closely follows a double-exponential (Laplace), rather than a normal (Gaussian), distribution, and increase as a linear function of the magnitude of the flux for all three scalar fluxes. Across sites, variation in the random error follows consistent and robust patterns in relation to environmental variables. For example, seasonal differences in the random error for H are small, in contrast to both LE and FCO2, for which the random errors are roughly three-fold larger at the peak of the growing season compared to the dormant season. Random errors also generally scale with Rn (H and LE) and PPFD (FCO2). For FCO2 (but not H or LE), the random error decreases with increasing wind speed. Data from two sites suggest that FCO2 random error may be slightly smaller when a closed-path, rather than open-path, gas analyzer is used.
Published Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.01.007
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2764259

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • FAS Scholarly Articles [7219]
    Peer reviewed scholarly articles from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University
 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters