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
Evaluation of optimized flux chamber design for measurement of ammonia emission after field application of slurry with full-scale farm machinery
Johanna Pedersen, Sasha D. Hafner, Andreas Pacholski, Valthor I. Karlsson, Li Rong, Rodrigo Labouriau, and Jesper N. Kamp
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 4493–4505, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4493-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4493-2024, 2024
Short summary
Preparation of low-concentration H2 test gas mixtures in ambient air for calibration of H2 sensors
Niklas Karbach, Lisa Höhler, Peter Hoor, Heiko Bozem, Nicole Bobrowski, and Thorsten Hoffmann
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 4081–4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4081-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Pico-Light H2O: intercomparison of in situ water vapour measurements during the AsA 2022 campaign
Mélanie Ghysels, Georges Durry, Nadir Amarouche, Dale Hurst, Emrys Hall, Kensy Xiong, Jean-Charles Dupont, Jean-Christophe Samake, Fabien Frérot, Raghed Bejjani, and Emmanuel D. Riviere
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3495–3513, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3495-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3495-2024, 2024
Short summary
Mobile air quality monitoring and comparison to fixed monitoring sites for instrument performance assessment
Andrew R. Whitehill, Melissa Lunden, Brian LaFranchi, Surender Kaushik, and Paul A. Solomon
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2991–3009, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2991-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2991-2024, 2024
Short summary
Intercomparison of eddy-covariance software for urban tall-tower sites
Changxing Lan, Matthias Mauder, Stavros Stagakis, Benjamin Loubet, Claudio D'Onofrio, Stefan Metzger, David Durden, and Pedro-Henrique Herig-Coimbra
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2649–2669, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2649-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2649-2024, 2024
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.