% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Graf:151964,
author = {Graf, Alexander and Boer, Anneke and Moene, Arnold and
Vereecken, Harry},
title = {{I}ntercomparison of {M}ethods for the {S}imultaneous
{E}stimation of {Z}ero-{P}lane {D}isplacement and
{A}erodynamic {R}oughness {L}ength from {S}ingle-{L}evel
{E}ddy-{C}ovariance {D}ata},
journal = {Boundary layer meteorology},
volume = {151},
number = {2},
issn = {1573-1472},
address = {Dordrecht [u.a.]},
publisher = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V},
reportid = {FZJ-2014-01796},
pages = {373 - 387},
year = {2014},
abstract = {We 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.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255) / DFG project 139819005 - Links between local
scale and catchment scale measurements and modelling of gas
exchange processes over land surfaces (139819005) / DFG
project 15232683 - TRR 32: Muster und Strukturen in
Boden-Pflanzen-Atmosphären-Systemen: Erfassung,
Modellierung und Datenassimilation (15232683)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255 / G:(GEPRIS)139819005 /
G:(GEPRIS)15232683},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000333334600010},
doi = {10.1007/s10546-013-9905-z},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/151964},
}