Spatial representativeness and the location bias of flux footprints over inhomogeneous areas

Turbulent fluxes over natural vegetation are spatially inhomogeneous up to a level called the physical blending height. Measurements below this blending height suffer from a location bias that varies with sensor height, wind direction and stability. The location bias is the degree, to which a flux measured at a given location differs from the aggregated ecosystem-scale flux. This location bias is analyzed using the source area/footprint approach, where the aggregated surface conditions contained in the footprint are compared to average surface conditions in the ecosystem. When a single observation event at a given location is considered, this method leads to a quantitative measure of the sensor location bias. It provides an objective estimate of how a given flux observation compares to the ecosystem scale flux. The expected sensor location bias is expressed as the fraction of surface variability not accounted for by measurements at a given sensor height, independent of its location within the ecosystem. It results from a convolution of the footprint filter function with a detailed surface condition database. These tools to examine the spatial representativeness of flux measurements are applied to an inhomogeneous savannah surface (Tiger bush) in the Sahel region of Niger, and to measurements of evaporation collected during the HAPEX-Sahel field campaign.

[1]  Nigel Wood,et al.  The influence of static stability on the effective roughness lengths for momentum and heat transfer , 1991 .

[2]  D. Baldocchi Flux Footprints Within and Over Forest Canopies , 1997 .

[3]  J.-P. Goutorbe,et al.  HAPEX-Sahel: a large-scale study of land-atmosphere interactions in the semi-arid tropics , 1994 .

[4]  P. J. Mason,et al.  The formation of areally‐averaged roughness lengths , 1988 .

[5]  John S. Irwin,et al.  Applied dispersion modelling based on meteorological scaling parameters , 1987 .

[6]  T. Oke,et al.  Spatial variability of energy fluxes in suburban terrain , 1991 .

[7]  A. V. Ulden,et al.  Simple estimates for vertical diffusion from sources near the ground , 1978 .

[8]  J. I. MacPherson,et al.  Footprint considerations in BOREAS , 1997 .

[9]  Hans Peter Schmid,et al.  A model to estimate the source area contributing to turbulent exchange in the surface layer over patchy terrain , 1990 .

[10]  Monique Y. Leclerc,et al.  Footprint prediction of scalar fluxes using a Markovian analysis , 1990 .

[11]  Albert A. M. Holtslag,et al.  Scaling the atmospheric boundary layer , 1986 .

[12]  H. Schmid Source areas for scalars and scalar fluxes , 1994 .

[13]  T. W. Horst,et al.  Experimental evaluation of analytical and Lagrangian surface-layer flux footprint models , 1996 .

[14]  Energy and water budgets of an area of patterned woodland in the Sahel , 1993 .

[15]  J. Wieringa Roughness‐dependent geographical interpolation of surface wind speed averages , 1986 .

[16]  B. Lamb,et al.  Observations and large-eddy simulation modeling of footprints in the lower convective boundary layer , 1997 .

[17]  T. W. Horst,et al.  How Far is Far Enough?: The Fetch Requirements for Micrometeorological Measurement of Surface Fluxes , 1994 .

[18]  G. Swaters,et al.  The source area influencing a measurement in the Planetary Boundary Layer: The “footprint” and the “distribution of contact distance” , 1991 .

[19]  C. Lloyd The effect of heterogeneous terrain on micrometeorological flux measurements: a case study from HAPEX-Sahel , 1995 .

[20]  Hans Peter Schmid,et al.  Experimental design for flux measurements: matching scales of observations and fluxes , 1997 .

[21]  Monique Y. Leclerc,et al.  Footprint prediction of scalar fluxes from analytical solutions of the diffusion equation , 1990 .

[22]  T. W. Horst,et al.  Footprint estimation for scalar flux measurements in the atmospheric surface layer , 1992 .