Calculating canopy stomatal conductance from eddy covariance measurements, in light of the energy budget closure problem
<p>Canopy stomatal conductance is commonly estimated from eddy covariance measurements of the latent heat flux (<span class="inline-formula"><i>L</i><i>E</i></span>) by inverting the Penman–Monteith equation. That method ignores eddy covariance mea...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Biogeosciences |
| Online Access: | https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/13/2021/bg-18-13-2021.pdf |
| _version_ | 1818611898487144448 |
|---|---|
| author | R. Wehr S. R. Saleska |
| author_facet | R. Wehr S. R. Saleska |
| author_sort | R. Wehr |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Canopy stomatal conductance is commonly estimated from
eddy covariance measurements of the latent heat flux (<span class="inline-formula"><i>L</i><i>E</i></span>) by inverting the
Penman–Monteith equation. That method ignores eddy covariance measurements
of the sensible heat flux (<span class="inline-formula"><i>H</i></span>) and instead calculates <span class="inline-formula"><i>H</i></span> implicitly as the
residual of all other terms in the site energy budget. Here we show that
canopy stomatal conductance is more accurately calculated from eddy covariance (EC)
measurements of both <span class="inline-formula"><i>H</i></span> and <span class="inline-formula"><i>L</i><i>E</i></span> using the flux–gradient equations that define
conductance and underlie the Penman–Monteith equation, especially when the
site energy budget fails to close due to pervasive biases in the eddy fluxes
and/or the available energy. The flux–gradient formulation dispenses with
unnecessary assumptions, is conceptually simpler, and is as or more accurate
in all plausible scenarios. The inverted Penman–Monteith equation, on the
other hand, contributes substantial biases and erroneous spatial and
temporal patterns to canopy stomatal conductance, skewing its relationships
with drivers such as light and vapor pressure deficit.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-16T15:37:39Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-bc52082d57e440feae60ae85d362004c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1726-4170 1726-4189 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-16T15:37:39Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Copernicus Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Biogeosciences |
| spelling | doaj.art-bc52082d57e440feae60ae85d362004c2022-12-21T22:26:08ZengCopernicus PublicationsBiogeosciences1726-41701726-41892021-01-0118132410.5194/bg-18-13-2021Calculating canopy stomatal conductance from eddy covariance measurements, in light of the energy budget closure problemR. WehrS. R. Saleska<p>Canopy stomatal conductance is commonly estimated from eddy covariance measurements of the latent heat flux (<span class="inline-formula"><i>L</i><i>E</i></span>) by inverting the Penman–Monteith equation. That method ignores eddy covariance measurements of the sensible heat flux (<span class="inline-formula"><i>H</i></span>) and instead calculates <span class="inline-formula"><i>H</i></span> implicitly as the residual of all other terms in the site energy budget. Here we show that canopy stomatal conductance is more accurately calculated from eddy covariance (EC) measurements of both <span class="inline-formula"><i>H</i></span> and <span class="inline-formula"><i>L</i><i>E</i></span> using the flux–gradient equations that define conductance and underlie the Penman–Monteith equation, especially when the site energy budget fails to close due to pervasive biases in the eddy fluxes and/or the available energy. The flux–gradient formulation dispenses with unnecessary assumptions, is conceptually simpler, and is as or more accurate in all plausible scenarios. The inverted Penman–Monteith equation, on the other hand, contributes substantial biases and erroneous spatial and temporal patterns to canopy stomatal conductance, skewing its relationships with drivers such as light and vapor pressure deficit.</p>https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/13/2021/bg-18-13-2021.pdf |
| spellingShingle | R. Wehr S. R. Saleska Calculating canopy stomatal conductance from eddy covariance measurements, in light of the energy budget closure problem Biogeosciences |
| title | Calculating canopy stomatal conductance from eddy covariance measurements, in light of the energy budget closure problem |
| title_full | Calculating canopy stomatal conductance from eddy covariance measurements, in light of the energy budget closure problem |
| title_fullStr | Calculating canopy stomatal conductance from eddy covariance measurements, in light of the energy budget closure problem |
| title_full_unstemmed | Calculating canopy stomatal conductance from eddy covariance measurements, in light of the energy budget closure problem |
| title_short | Calculating canopy stomatal conductance from eddy covariance measurements, in light of the energy budget closure problem |
| title_sort | calculating canopy stomatal conductance from eddy covariance measurements in light of the energy budget closure problem |
| url | https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/13/2021/bg-18-13-2021.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rwehr calculatingcanopystomatalconductancefromeddycovariancemeasurementsinlightoftheenergybudgetclosureproblem AT srsaleska calculatingcanopystomatalconductancefromeddycovariancemeasurementsinlightoftheenergybudgetclosureproblem |