2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.109305
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of relative humidity on eddy covariance latent heat flux measurements and its implication for partitioning into transpiration and evaporation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Clearly, we can not assume that all systematic energy balance closure issues scale only with AE (Foken, 2008; Mauder et al., 2020), while our method accounts explicitly only for this part of the energy imbalance (embedding the relative humidity dependent correction proposed in Zhang et al. (2023)). Strictly speaking this implies that our method is incomplete and it indeed shows a weak under‐closure, which is more pronounced at high AE conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Clearly, we can not assume that all systematic energy balance closure issues scale only with AE (Foken, 2008; Mauder et al., 2020), while our method accounts explicitly only for this part of the energy imbalance (embedding the relative humidity dependent correction proposed in Zhang et al. (2023)). Strictly speaking this implies that our method is incomplete and it indeed shows a weak under‐closure, which is more pronounced at high AE conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For consistency, data were aggregated to hourly resolution because flux measurements are not available at the half-hourly scale for all sites. Hourly LE measurements (when the quality flags for Rn, H, LE, and net exchange of carbon dioxide flux being 0) were then corrected using the high relative humidity correction method (Zhang et al, 2023), where we also confirmed the small effect of G. To reconcile the complication and uncertainty of the diurnal cycle and the strong G (and storage flux) effects at the sub-daily scale, hourly data were averaged to the daily scale with discarding days when less than half the percentage of good quality within a day. In theory, the effect of G at a daily scale should be minimized and may be neglected, as the heat flux stored in the soil surface during the day should be largely released from the surface during the night, and we further diagnosed the G effect for sites with G measurements (comparing the energy balance closure when setting G to zero across the network, Figures S1 and S2 in Supporting Information S1) to gain more confidence, we then gap-fill G by setting all missing values to 0 to cover as many days and sites as possible.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, high relative humidity can produce an underestimation of LE, especially with closed-path systems, as the cut-off frequency of the closed-path system for water vapour concentration measurements decreases exponentially with increasing relative humidity (Zhang et al, 2023a). Based on these assumptions, we implemented two corrections separately.…”
Section: Energy Balance Closure and Latent Heat Flux Underestimationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2. The Zhang et al (2023a) correction, hereafter high relative humidity correction (HRHC), which adjusts LE considering the impact of high relative humidity.…”
Section: The Mauder Et Al (2013) Correction Hereafter Thementioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods were reviewed by Kool et al [ 14 ] and classified into two categories: models and measurements. The commonly used models were the Shuttleworth–Wallace model [ 19 ] and its improved structures [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ], the clumped model [ 26 , 27 ], the FAO-56 dual crop coefficient model [ 28 , 29 , 30 ] and other improved dual-source models [ 31 , 32 , 33 ], while measurements were mainly eddy covariance techniques [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ] and Bowen ratio systems [ 39 , 40 , 41 ] (acquiring ET), stable isotopes [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ] (acquiring E s or T ), sap flow meters [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ] (acquiring T ), microlysimeters [ 50 , 51 , 52 ] (acquiring E s ) and water collection tanks [ 53 , 54 ] (acquiring E i ). Among these methods, the modeling approach has the advantage of its applicability over a wide range of time scales and can be applied to the spatial scale of an entire ecosystem [ 55 , 56 ], but these models always require complex parameterizations and still require validation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%