2001
DOI: 10.1175/1520-0450(2001)040<1431:rotcci>2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Representation of the Canopy Conductance in Modeling the Surface Energy Budget for Low Vegetation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
144
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(146 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
2
144
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Two types of bulk canopy resistance models have been applied to express r s : the Noilhan-Planton (N-P) approach (Noilhan and Planton, 1989), also referred to as the Jarvis model (Jarvis, 1976), and the Jacobs-De Bruin (J-D) model (Jacobs and De Bruin, 1997;Ronda et al, 2001) also referred to as the Ball type model (Ball et al, 1987).…”
Section: The Bulk Canopy Resistance R Smentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Two types of bulk canopy resistance models have been applied to express r s : the Noilhan-Planton (N-P) approach (Noilhan and Planton, 1989), also referred to as the Jarvis model (Jarvis, 1976), and the Jacobs-De Bruin (J-D) model (Jacobs and De Bruin, 1997;Ronda et al, 2001) also referred to as the Ball type model (Ball et al, 1987).…”
Section: The Bulk Canopy Resistance R Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The former relates the canopy resistance to environmental variables at an atmospheric reference height (Javis, 1976;Noilhan and Planton, 1989); the latter correlates canopy resistance to the assimilation rate (Ball et al, 1987;Leuning, 1995;Jacobs and De Bruin, 1997). Although these two types of models have been applied to various canopies and plants (Niyogi and Raman 1997;Ronda et al, 2001), there has been no comparison of the two types of models in terms of their application to the P-M model to simulate the actual ET of crop fields, especially in the arid area of northwest China. The functions and parameters of the models have yet to be evaluated in different studies and in different environmental conditions.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An advantage of an A-g s model is that the calculations are based on simple plant characteristics, for example, whether the vegetation uses the C3 or C4 metabolism, and on atmospheric variables that are measured on a routine basis at a standard meteorological observation site. Recently, it was improved the approximation for the canopy conductance [7] as:…”
Section: The Excange Velocity Approach For the Transfer From Air To Pmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…with g min,w -cuticle conductance for water; LAI -leaf area index; C s -the CO 2 concentration at the leaf surface, (mg m −3 ) is the CO 2 compensation point, D s (Pa) is the vapour pressure deficit at plant level; f( r ) is correction for soil water stress and a 1 and D * are empirical quantities defined, as many other quantities needed in [7]. A g,c is the (unstressed) canopy gross assimilation rate (net of photorespiration for C3 crops) and is parameterized as in WOFOST crop growth model and adapted to local cultivars [8].…”
Section: The Excange Velocity Approach For the Transfer From Air To Pmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jacobs (1994) deduced the parameterizations assuming plant roots were deep and plants did not suffer from water stress during the observations. Calvet et al (1998) and Ronda, Bruin and Holtslag (2001) proposed modifications that take into account the relationships between soil water content and mesophyll conductance g m and the gross assimilation rate of CO 2 A g , respectively. These relationships, usually linear, were developed based on empirical considerations and, therefore, fail to describe the responses of plants to soil water content in a mechanistic way.…”
Section: Plant-atmosphere Transfer Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%