Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of theoretical footprint models using experimental measurements of turbulent fluxes over maize fields in Po Valley

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Representative source area of turbulent fluxes measured by eddy covariance stations is an important issue which has not yet been fully investigated. In particular, the validation of the analytical footprint models is generally based on the comparison with Lagrangian model predictions, while experimental results are not largely diffused in literature. In this work, spatial distribution of carbon dioxide, latent and sensible heat fluxes across two different maize fields in Po Valley, is used to validate two theoretical footprint models. Experiments are performed in two totally different scenarios at bare and vegetated soils using two eddy covariance systems: one fixed station which is located about in the middle of the field and a mobile station which is placed at various distances from the field edge to investigate the horizontal variation of the vertical scalar fluxes. The first objective of this work is to provide detailed information about the spatial distribution of turbulent fluxes across Po Valley characteristic fields at bare and vegetated soils, highlighting peculiarities and uniqueness. The second objective consists in the comparison between mobile measurements of carbon dioxide, latent and sensible heat fluxes and the predictions of two analytical footprint models widely used in literature. Contemporaneously, the latter objective will permit to understand what is the best footprint model which, under typical Po Valley atmospheric turbulent conditions, describes a representative source area compatible with the field dimensions and the turbulent flux distributions. The results show that both models are in good agreement with experimental measurements. The results also show that the spatial distribution of turbulent fluxes is strongly influenced by the presence of vegetation in the field. Moreover, the representative source area is different for different scalar fluxes. Another result is about 10:1 fetch-to-height obtained for both field situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aubinet M, Grelle A, Ibrom A et al (2000) Estimates of the annual net carbon and water exchange of forests: the euroflux methodology. Adv Ecol Res 30:113–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldocchi D (2003) Assessing the eddy covariance technique for evaluating carbon dioxide exchange rates of ecosystems: past, present and future. Glob Change Biol 9:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldocchi D, Rao K (1995) Intra-field variability of scalar flux densities across a transition between desert and an irrigated potato field. Bound Lay Meteorol 76:109–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldocchi D, Hicks BB, Meyers TP (1988) Measuring biosphere atmosphere exchange of biologically related gases with micrometeorological methods. Ecology 69:1331–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldocchi D, Falge E, Gu L, Olsen R, Hollinger D, Running S et al (2001) FLUXNET: a new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. B Am Meteorol Soc 82:2415–2434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calder K (1952) Some recent british work on the problem of diffusion in the lower atmosphere. Mc Graw-Hill, New York, pp 787–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Castaldelli G, Colombani N, Vincenzi F, Mastrociccio M (2013) Linking dissolved organic carbon, acetate and denitrification in agricultural soils. Environ Earth Sci 68:939–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbari C, Masseroni D, Mancini M (2012) Effetto delle correzioni dei dati misurati da stazioni eddy covariance sulla stima dei flussi evapotraspirativi. Ital J Agrometeorol 1:35–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer AJ (1963) The adjustment of profiles and eddy fluxes. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 89:276–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot W (1958) The growth of the atmospheric internal boundary layer. Trans Am Geophys Un 50:171–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Foken T (2008) The energy balance closure problem:an overview. Ecol Appl 18:1351–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foken T, Leclerc MY (2004) Methods and limitations in validation of footprint models. Agr Forest Meteorol 127:223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foken T, Wichura B (1996) Tools for quality assessment of surface-based flux measurements. Agr Forest Meteorol 78:83–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foken T, Göckede M, Mauder M, Mahrt L, Amiro B, Munger J (2004) Post-field data quality control. In: Lee X, Massman W, Law B (eds) Handbook of micrometeorology: A guide for surface flux measurement and analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 181–208. doi:10.1007/1-4020-2265-4_9

    Google Scholar 

  • Foken T, Wimmer F, Mauder M, Thomas C, Liebhetal C (2006) Some aspects of the energy balance closure problem. Atmos Chem Phys 6:4395–4402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garratt J (1993) The atmospheric boundary layer. Cambridge university press, Cambridge, p 316 (ISBN 0 521 38052 9)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gash JHC (1986) A note on estimating the effect of a limited fetch on micrometeorological evaporation measurements. Bound Lay Meteorol 35:409–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göckede M, Markkanen T, Mauder M, Arnold K, Leps J-P, Foken T (2005) Validation of footprint models using natural tracer measurements from a field experiment. Agr Forest Meteorol 135:314–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horst T (1999) The footprint for estimation of atmosphere surface exchange fluxes by profile techniques. Bound Lay Meteorol 90:171–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horst T, Weil J (1992) Footprint estimation for scalar flux measuraments in the atmospheric sourface layer. Bound Lay Meteorol 59:279–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh C, Katul (2009) The Lagrangian stochastic model for estimating footprint and water vapor fluxes over inhomogeneous surfaces. Int J Biometeorol 53:87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh C, Katul G, Chi T (2000) An approximate analytical model for footprint estimation of scalar fluxes in thermally stratified atmospheric flows. Adv Water Res 23:765–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaimal JC, Finnigan JJ (1994) Atmospheric boundary layer flows, their structure and measurement. Oxford University Press, New York, p 289

    Google Scholar 

  • Kljun N, Rotach M, Schmid H (2002) A 3D bacward lagrangian footprint model for a wide range of buondary layer stratifications. Bound Lay Meteorol 103:205–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kljun N, Kastner-Klein P, Fedorovich E, Rotach MW (2004) Evaluation of a lagrangian footprint model using data from a wind tunnel convective boundary layer. Special issue on footprints of fluxes and concentrations. Agr Forest Meteorol 127:189–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kormann R, Meixner F (2001) An analytical model for non-neutral stratification. Bound Lay Meteorol 103:205–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurbanmuradov OA, Sabelfeld KK (2000) Lagrangian stochastic models for turbulent dispersion in the atmospheric boundary layer. Bound Lay Meteorol 97:191–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leclerc MY, Meskhidze N, Finn D (2003) Comparison between measured tracer fluxes and footprint model predictions over a homogeneous canopy of intermediate roughness. Agr Forest Meteorol 117:145–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee X (2002) Fetch and footprint of turbulent fluxes over vegetative stands with elevated sources. Bound Lay Meteorol 107:561–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcolla B, Cescatti A (2005) Experimental analysis of flux footprint for varying stability conditions in an alpine meadow. Agr Forest Meteorol 135:291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masseroni D, Ravazzani G, Corbari C, Mancini M (2012) Turbulance integral length and footprint dimension with reference to experimental data measured over maize cultivation in Po Valley, Italy. Atmosfera 25:183–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauder M, Foken T (2004) Documentation and instruction manual of the eddy covariance software package TK2, vol 26. Univ Bayreuth, Abt Mikrometeorol, Arbeitsergebn, pp 42

  • Moncrieff J, Clement R, Finnigan J, Meyers T (2004) Averanging and filtering of eddy covariance time series. In: Handbook of micrometeorology: a guide for surface flux measurements. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 7–31

  • Munro DS, Oke TR (1975) Aerodynamic Boundary-Layer adjustment over a crop in neutral stability. Bound Lay Meteorol 9:53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neftel A, Spirig C, Ammann C (2008) Application and test of a simple tool for operational footprint evaluations. Environ Pollut 152:644–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papale D, Reichstein M, Aubinet M, Canfora E, Bernhofer C, Kutsch W et al (2006) Towards a standardized processing of net ecosystem exchange measured with eddy covariance technique: algorithms and uncertainty estimation. Biogeosciences 3:571–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasquill F, Smith FB (1983) Atmospheric diffusion, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, p 437

    Google Scholar 

  • Rannik U, Aubinet M, Kurbanmuradov O, Sabelfeld KK, Markkanen T, Vesala T (2000) Footprint analysis for measurements over a heterogeneous forest. Bound Lay Meteorol 97:137–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raupach MR (1989) A practical lagrangian method for relating Scalar concentrations to source distributions in vegetation canopies. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 115:609–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savelyev S, Taylor P (2005) Internal Boundary Layer: I. Height formulae for neutral and diabatic flows. Bound Lay Meteorol 115:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid H (1994) Source areas for scalars and scalar fluxes. Bound Lay Meteorol 67:293–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid H (1997) Experimental design for flux measurements: matching scales of observations and fluxes. Agr Foest Meteorol 87:179–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid H (2002) Footprint modeling for vegetation atmosphere exchange studies: a review and prospective. Agr Foest Meteorol 113:159–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuepp P, Leclerc M, Macpherson J, Desjardins R (1990) Footprint prediction of scalar fluxes from analytical solutions of the diffusion equation. Bound Lay Meteorol 50:353–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson D (1987) Criteria for the selection of stochastic models of particle trajectories in turbolent flows. J Fluid Mech 180:529–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai J, Tsuang B (2005) Aerodinamic roughness over an urban area and over two farmalands in a populated area as determined by wind profiles and surface energy flux measurements. Agric Forest Meteorol 132:154–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Boer A, Moene AF, Schuttemeyer D, Graf A (2013) Sensitivity and uncertainty of analytical footprint models according to a combined natural tracer and ensemble approach. Agr Forest Meteorol 13:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk A, Kohsiek W, De Bruin H (2003) Oxygen sensitivity of krypton and Lyman-alfa Hygrometer. J Atmos Ocean Tech 20:143–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ulden A (1978) Simple estimates for vertical diffusion from cources near the ground. Atmos Environ 12:2125–2129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesala T, Kljun N, Rannik U, Rinne J, Sogachev A, Markkanen T, Sabelfeld K, Foken T, Leclerc MY (2008) Flux and concentration footprint modeling: State of the art. Environ Pollut 152:653–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb E, Pearman G, Leuning R (1980) Correction of the flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer. Bound Lay Meteorol 23:251–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded in the framework of the ACQWA EU/FP7 project (Grant number 212250) “Assessing Climate impacts on the Quantity and quality of WAter”, the framework of the ACCA project funded by Regione Lombardia “Misura e modellazione matematica dei flussi di ACqua e CArbonio negli agro-ecosistemi a mais” and PREGI (Previsione meteo idrologica per la gestione irrigua) funded by Regione Lombardia. The authors thank the University of Milan–DISAA for the collaboration in managing Landriano eddy covariance station. Special thanks to Dr. Alessandro Ceppi for his help in setting up the experiment and his overall support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Produzione, Territorio e Agroenergia, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133, Milan, Italy

    Daniele Masseroni

  2. Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Politecnico di Milano, P.zza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133, Milan, Italy

    Chiara Corbari & Marco Mancini

Authors
  1. Daniele Masseroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chiara Corbari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Mancini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniele Masseroni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Masseroni, D., Corbari, C. & Mancini, M. Validation of theoretical footprint models using experimental measurements of turbulent fluxes over maize fields in Po Valley. Environ Earth Sci 72, 1213–1225 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-3040-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-3040-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation