Sensitivity and uncertainty of analytical footprint models according to a combined natural tracer and ensemble approach

van de Boer, A.; Moene, A.F.; Schüttemeyer, D.; Graf, Alexander

doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.016

Journal Article

FZJ-2013-00656

Sensitivity and uncertainty of analytical footprint models according to a combined natural tracer and ensemble approach

van de Boer, A. (Corresponding author) ; Moene, A. F. ; Schüttemeyer, D. ; Graf, A.FZJ*

2013
Elsevier Amsterdam [u.a.]

Agricultural and forest meteorology 169, 1 - 11 (2013) [10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.016]

This record in other databases:

Please use a persistent id in citations: doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.016

Abstract: 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).

Classification: