Sensitivity and uncertainty of analytical footprint models according to a combined natural tracer and ensemble approach
Sensitivity and uncertainty of analytical footprint models according to a combined natural tracer and ensemble approach
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.016
复制
发表时间：
2013-02
影响因子：
6.2
通讯作者：
A. Boer;A. Moene;D. Schüttemeyer;A. Graf
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Boer;A. Moene;D. Schüttemeyer;A. Graf
使用位于不同土地利用类型的几个站点的数据对分析足迹模型进行评估的情况仍然很少，但对确定测量的空间背景很有价值。因此，我们通过应用“正向”和“反向”方法对两种分析足迹模型进行了评估。我们使用了2009年夏季德国西部一片平坦的农业景观的涡旋协方差测量，在三种不同的土地利用类型上使用了七个涡旋协方差系统，它们的感热通量形成了鲜明的对比。我们发现，谢家华等人的模型。(2000年。上级水资源。23,765-772)和Kormann和Meixner(2001)。边界层气象。99、207-224)都高估了足迹峰值贡献的距离。在我们的评估中，前一个模型的表现略好一些，无论是从后一个模型还是从Detto等人提出的模型中使用侧风扩散。(2006年。水源。决议42，1-16)。
Evaluations of analytical footprint models using data from several stations located in different land use types are still scarce, but valuable for defining the spatial context of the measurements. Therefore, we evaluated two analytical footprint models by applying a ‘forward’ and an ‘inversion’ method. We used eddy covariance measurements from a flat agricultural landscape in western Germany in the summer of 2009, with seven eddy covariance systems over three different land use types with contrasting sensible heat fluxes. We found that the model of Hsieh et al. (2000. Adv. Water Resour. 23, 765–772) and of Kormann and Meixner (2001. Boundary Layer Meteorol. 99, 207–224) are both overestimating the distance of the peak contribution of the footprint. In our evaluation, the former model performs slightly better, independent of whether the crosswind dispersion was used from the latter model, or from the proposed model by Detto et al. (2006. Water Resour. Res. 42, 1–16).