Skip to main content
ARS Home » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #259083
Title: A comparison of the eddy covariance and lysimetry-based measurements of the surface energy fluxes during BEAREX08

Author
item Alfieri, Joseph
item Kustas, William - Bill
item Prueger, John
item CHAVES, JOSE - Colorado State University
item Evett, Steven - Steve
item NEALS, CHRISTOPHER - Utah State University
item Anderson, Martha
item HIPPS, LAWRENCE - Utah State University
item Copeland, Karen
item Howell, Terry
item French, Andrew
item Dulaney, Wayne
item McKee, Lynn

Submitted to: International Association of Hydrological Science
Publication Type: Proceedings
Publication Acceptance Date: 2/17/2011
Publication Date: 9/21/2012
Citation: Alfieri, J.G., Kustas, W.P., Prueger, J.H., Chaves, J.L., Evett, S.R., Neals, C.M., Anderson, M.C., Hipps, L., Copeland, K.S., Howell, T.A., French, A.N., Dulaney, W.P., McKee, L.G. 2012. A comparison of the eddy covariance and lysimetry-based measurements of the surface energy fluxes during BEAREX08. International Association of Hydrological Science. 352:215-218.

Interpretive Summary:

Technical Abstract: Understanding the uncertainty associated with ground truth data is critical for accurately assessing remote sensing-based products and models. Using data collected with eddy covariance systems and lysimetry during the 2008 Bushland Evapotranspiration and Agricultural Remote Sensing Experiment (BEAREX08), this research sought to characterized surface energy measurements collected over irrigated cotton under strongly advective conditions. The results of the analysis showed substantial differences between the flux measurements with the lysimetry-based latent heat flux exceeding those of the eddy covariance measurements by as much as 400 W m-2. The differences between the non-turbulent fluxes were smaller, typically on the order of 100 W m-2. Even after forcing closure of the eddy covariance data, it was not possible to reconcile the measurements. Although differences in local surface conditions were found among the measurement sites, the cause for the discrepancies between the measurements from the two methods remains unclear. It is the focus of ongoing research.