Interactions between nocturnal turbulent flux, storage and advection at an “ideal” eucalypt woodland site
While the eddy covariance technique has become an important technique for estimating long-term ecosystem carbon balance, under certain conditions the measured turbulent flux of CO<sub>2</sub> at a given height above an ecosystem does not represent the true surface flux. Profile system...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2017-06-01
|
Series: | Biogeosciences |
Online Access: | http://www.biogeosciences.net/14/3027/2017/bg-14-3027-2017.pdf |
Summary: | While the eddy covariance technique has become an important
technique for estimating long-term ecosystem carbon balance, under certain
conditions the measured turbulent flux of CO<sub>2</sub> at a given height above an
ecosystem does not represent the true surface flux. Profile systems have been
deployed to measure periodic storage of CO<sub>2</sub> below the measurement
height, but have not been widely adopted. This is most likely due to the
additional expense and complexity and possibly also the perception, given
that net storage over intervals exceeding 24 h is generally negligible, that
these measurements are not particularly important. In this study, we used a
3-year record of net ecosystem exchange of CO<sub>2</sub> and simultaneous
measurements of CO<sub>2</sub> storage to ascertain the relative contributions of
turbulent CO<sub>2</sub> flux, storage, and advection (calculated as a residual
quantity) to the nocturnal CO<sub>2</sub> balance and to quantify the effect of
neglecting storage. The conditions at the site are in relative terms highly
favourable for eddy covariance measurements, yet we found a substantial
contribution (∼ 40 %) of advection to nocturnal turbulent flux
underestimation. The most likely mechanism for advection is cooling-induced
drainage flows, the effects of which were observed in the storage
measurements. The remaining ∼ 60 % of flux underestimation was due
to storage of CO<sub>2</sub>. We also showed that substantial underestimation of
carbon uptake (approximately 80 gC m<sup>−2</sup> a<sup>−1</sup>, or 25 % of
annual carbon uptake) arose when standard methods (<i>u</i><sub>∗</sub> filtering) of
nocturnal flux correction were implemented in the absence of storage
estimates. These biases were reduced to approximately
40–45 gC m<sup>−2</sup> a<sup>−1</sup> when the filter was applied over the entire
diel period, but they were nonetheless large relative to quantifiable
uncertainties in the data. Neglect of storage also distorted the
relationships between the CO<sub>2</sub> exchange processes (respiration and
photosynthesis) and their key controls (light and temperature respectively).
We conclude that the addition of storage measurements to eddy covariance
sites with all but the lowest measurement heights should be a high priority
for the flux measurement community. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1726-4170 1726-4189 |