000151964 001__ 151964
000151964 005__ 20230310131323.0
000151964 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1007/s10546-013-9905-z
000151964 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0006-8314
000151964 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1573-1472
000151964 0247_ $$2wos$$aWOS:000333334600010
000151964 037__ $$aFZJ-2014-01796
000151964 082__ $$a550
000151964 1001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)129461$$aGraf, Alexander$$b0$$eCorresponding author$$ufzj
000151964 245__ $$aIntercomparison of Methods for the Simultaneous Estimation of Zero-Plane Displacement and Aerodynamic Roughness Length from Single-Level Eddy-Covariance Data
000151964 260__ $$aDordrecht [u.a.]$$bSpringer Science + Business Media B.V$$c2014
000151964 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1396950845_6484
000151964 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000151964 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000151964 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000151964 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000151964 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000151964 520__ $$aWe applied three approaches to estimate the zero-plane displacement d through the aerodynamic measurement height z (with z = zm − d and zm being the measurement height above the surface), and the aerodynamic roughness length z0, from single-level eddy covariance data. Two approaches (one iterative and one regression-based) were based on the universal function in the logarithmic wind profile and yielded an inherently simultaneous estimation of both d and z0. The third approach was based on flux-variance similarity, where estimation of d and consecutive estimation of z0 are independent steps. Each approach was further divided into two methods differing either with respect to the solution technique (profile approaches) or with respect to the variable (variance of vertical wind and temperature, respectively). All methods were applied to measurements above a large, growing wheat field where a uniform canopy height and its frequent monitoring provided plausibility limits for the resulting estimates of time-variant d and z0. After applying, for each approach, a specific data filtering that accounted for the range of conditions (e.g. stability) for which it is valid, five of the six methods were able to describe the temporal changes of roughness parameters associated with crop growth and harvest, and four of them agreed on d to within 0.3 m most of the time. Application of the same methods to measurements with a more heterogeneous footprint consisting of fully-grown sugarbeet and a varying contribution of adjacent harvested fields exhibited a plausible dependence of the roughness parameters on sugarbeet fraction. It also revealed that the methods producing the largest outliers can differ between site conditions and stability. We therefore conclude that when determining d for canopies with unknown properties from single-level measurements, as is increasingly done, it is important to compare the results of a number of methods rather than rely on a single one. An ensemble average or median of the results, possibly after elimination of methods that produce outliers, can help to yield more robust estimates. The estimates of z0 were almost exclusively physically plausible, although d was considered unknown and estimated simultaneously with the methods and results described above.
000151964 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255$$a255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction (POF3-255)$$cPOF3-255$$fPOF III$$x0
000151964 536__ $$0G:(GEPRIS)139819005$$aDFG project 139819005 - Links between local scale and catchment scale measurements and modelling of gas exchange processes over land surfaces (139819005)$$c139819005$$x1
000151964 536__ $$0G:(GEPRIS)15232683$$aDFG project 15232683 - TRR 32: Muster und Strukturen in Boden-Pflanzen-Atmosphären-Systemen: Erfassung, Modellierung und Datenassimilation (15232683)$$c15232683$$x2
000151964 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, juser.fz-juelich.de
000151964 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aBoer, Anneke$$b1
000151964 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aMoene, Arnold$$b2
000151964 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)129549$$aVereecken, Harry$$b3$$ufzj
000151964 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1477639-x$$a10.1007/s10546-013-9905-z$$gVol. 151, no. 2, p. 373 - 387$$n2$$p373 - 387$$tBoundary layer meteorology$$v151$$x1573-1472$$y2014
000151964 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/151964/files/FZJ-2014-01796.pdf$$yRestricted$$zPublished final document.
000151964 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:151964$$pVDB:Earth_Environment$$pVDB
000151964 9141_ $$y2014
000151964 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0010$$2StatID$$aJCR/ISI refereed
000151964 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0020$$2StatID$$aNo Peer review
000151964 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR
000151964 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0110$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index
000151964 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000151964 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000151964 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000151964 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000151964 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz
000151964 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1040$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bZoological Record
000151964 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)129461$$aForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH$$b0$$kFZJ
000151964 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)129549$$aForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH$$b3$$kFZJ
000151964 9132_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-250$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-200$$aDE-HGF$$bMarine, Küsten- und Polare Systeme$$lTerrestrische Umwelt$$vTerrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction$$x0
000151964 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-250$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-200$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bErde und Umwelt$$lTerrestrische Umwelt$$vTerrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction$$x0
000151964 920__ $$lyes
000151964 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118$$kIBG-3$$lAgrosphäre$$x0
000151964 980__ $$ajournal
000151964 980__ $$aVDB
000151964 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
000151964 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED