% 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{Gebler:203406,
      author       = {Gebler, S. and Hendricks-Franssen, Harrie-Jan and Pütz,
                      Thomas and Post, H. and Schmidt, Marius and Vereecken, H.},
      title        = {{A}ctual evapotranspiration and precipitation measured by
                      lysimeters: a comparison with eddy covariance and tipping
                      bucket},
      journal      = {Hydrology and earth system sciences},
      volume       = {19},
      number       = {5},
      issn         = {1607-7938},
      address      = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
      publisher    = {EGU},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2015-05349},
      pages        = {2145 - 2161},
      year         = {2015},
      abstract     = {This study compares actual evapotranspiration (ETa)
                      measurements by a set of six weighable lysimeters, ETa
                      estimates obtained with the eddy covariance (EC) method, and
                      evapotranspiration calculated with the full-form
                      Penman–Monteith equation (ETPM) for the Rollesbroich site
                      in the Eifel (western Germany). The comparison of ETa
                      measured by EC (including correction of the energy balance
                      deficit) and by lysimeters is rarely reported in the
                      literature and allows more insight into the performance of
                      both methods. An evaluation of ETa for the two methods for
                      the year 2012 shows a good agreement with a total difference
                      of $3.8\%$ (19 mm) between the ETa estimates. The highest
                      agreement and smallest relative differences (< $8\%)$ on a
                      monthly basis between both methods are found in summer. ETa
                      was close to ETPM, indicating that ET was energy limited and
                      not limited by water availability. ETa differences between
                      lysimeter and EC were mainly related to differences in grass
                      height caused by harvest and the EC footprint. The lysimeter
                      data were also used to estimate precipitation amounts in
                      combination with a filter algorithm for the high-precision
                      lysimeters recently introduced by Peters et al. (2014). The
                      estimated precipitation amounts from the lysimeter data
                      differ significantly from precipitation amounts recorded
                      with a standard rain gauge at the Rollesbroich test site.
                      For the complete year 2012 the lysimeter records show a 16
                      $\%$ higher precipitation amount than the tipping bucket.
                      After a correction of the tipping bucket measurements by the
                      method of Richter (1995) this amount was reduced to $3\%.$
                      With the help of an on-site camera the precipitation
                      measurements of the lysimeters were analyzed in more detail.
                      It was found that the lysimeters record more precipitation
                      than the tipping bucket, in part related to the detection of
                      rime and dew, which contribute $17\%$ to the yearly
                      difference between both methods. In addition, fog and
                      drizzle explain an additional $5.5\%$ of the total
                      difference. Larger differences are also recorded for snow
                      and sleet situations. During snowfall, the tipping bucket
                      device underestimated precipitation severely, and these
                      situations contributed also $7.9\%$ to the total difference.
                      However, $36\%$ of the total yearly difference was
                      associated with snow cover without apparent snowfall, and
                      under these conditions snow bridges and snow drift seem to
                      explain the strong overestimation of precipitation by the
                      lysimeter. The remaining precipitation difference (about
                      $33\%)$ could not be explained and did not show a clear
                      relation to wind speed. The variation of the individual
                      lysimeters devices compared to the lysimeter mean are small,
                      showing variations up to $3\%$ for precipitation and $8\%$
                      for evapotranspiration.},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
                      (POF3-255)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000355319500003},
      doi          = {10.5194/hess-19-2145-2015},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/203406},
}