Articles | Volume 14, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-7147-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-7147-2021
Research article
 | 
12 Nov 2021
Research article |  | 12 Nov 2021

Field testing two flux footprint models

Trevor W. Coates, Monzurul Alam, Thomas K. Flesch, and Guillermo Hernandez-Ramirez

Related authors

Nonlinear turnover rates of soil carbon following cultivation of native grasslands and subsequent afforestation of croplands
Guillermo Hernandez-Ramirez, Thomas J. Sauer, Yury G. Chendev, and Alexander N. Gennadiev
SOIL, 7, 415–431, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-7-415-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-7-415-2021, 2021
Short summary
Beef cattle methane emissions measured with tracer-ratio and inverse dispersion modelling techniques
Mei Bai, José I. Velazco, Trevor W. Coates, Frances A. Phillips, Thomas K. Flesch, Julian Hill, David G. Mayer, Nigel W. Tomkins, Roger S. Hegarty, and Deli Chen
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 3469–3479, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3469-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3469-2021, 2021
Short summary
Modelling nitrification inhibitor effects on N2O emissions after fall- and spring-applied slurry by reducing nitrifier NH4+ oxidation rate
Robert F. Grant, Sisi Lin, and Guillermo Hernandez-Ramirez
Biogeosciences, 17, 2021–2039, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2021-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2021-2020, 2020
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
Comparison of photoacoustic spectroscopy and cavity ring-down spectroscopy for ambient methane monitoring at Hohenpeißenberg
Max Müller, Stefan Weigl, Jennifer Müller-Williams, Matthias Lindauer, Thomas Rück, Simon Jobst, Rudolf Bierl, and Frank-Michael Matysik
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 4263–4270, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4263-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4263-2023, 2023
Short summary
Performance assessment of state-of-the-art and novel methods for remote compliance monitoring of sulphur emissions from shipping
Jörg Beecken, Andreas Weigelt, Simone Griesel, Johan Mellqvist, Alexander Vladimir Conde, Daniëlle van Dinther, Jan Duyzer, Jon Knudsen, Bettina Knudsen, and Leonidas Ntziachristos
Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-93,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-93, 2023
Preprint under review for AMT
Short summary
Comparison of atmospheric CO, CO2 and CH4 measurements at the Schneefernerhaus and the mountain ridge at Zugspitze
Antje Hoheisel, Cedric Couret, Bryan Hellack, and Martina Schmidt
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 2399–2413, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2399-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2399-2023, 2023
Short summary
Intercomparison of commercial analyzers for atmospheric ethane and methane observations
Róisín Commane, Andrew Hallward-Driemeier, and Lee T. Murray
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 1431–1441, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-1431-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-1431-2023, 2023
Short summary
Real-time measurement of phase partitioning of organic compounds using a proton-transfer-reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometer coupled to a CHARON inlet
Yarong Peng, Hongli Wang, Yaqin Gao, Shengao Jing, Shuhui Zhu, Dandan Huang, Peizhi Hao, Shengrong Lou, Tiantao Cheng, Cheng Huang, and Xuan Zhang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 15–28, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-15-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-15-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Budishchev, A., Mi, Y., van Huissteden, J., Belelli-Marchesini, L., Schaepman-Strub, G., Parmentier, F. J. W., Fratini, G., Gallagher, A., Maximov, T. C., and Dolman, A. J.: Evaluation of a plot-scale methane emission model using eddy covariance observations and footprint modelling, Biogeosciences, 11, 4651–4664, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4651-2014, 2014. 
Coates, T. W., Flesch, T. K., McGinn, S. M., Charmley, E., and Chen, D.: Evaluating an eddy covariance technique to estimate point-source emissions and its potential application to grazing cattle, Agr. Forest. Meteorol., 234-235, 164–171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.12.026, 2017. 
Dyer, A. J.: The adjustment of profiles and eddy fluxes, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 8, 276–280, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49708938009, 1963. 
Felber, R., Münger, A., Neftel, A., and Ammann, C.: Eddy covariance methane flux measurements over a grazed pasture: effect of cows as moving point sources, Biogeosciences, 12, 3925–3940, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-3925-2015, 2015. 
Flesch, T. K.: The footprint for flux measurements, from backward Lagrangian stochastic models, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 78, 399–404, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00120943, 1996. 
Download
Short summary
A field study tested two footprint models for calculating surface emissions from downwind flux measurements. Emission rates from a 10 × 10 m synthetic source were estimated with the simple Kormann–Meixner model and a sophisticated Lagrangian stochastic model. Both models underestimated emissions by approximately 30 %, and no statistical differences were observed between the models. Footprint models are critically important for interpreting eddy covariance measurements.