Articles | Volume 9, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-4915-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-4915-2016
Research article
 | 
06 Oct 2016
Research article |  | 06 Oct 2016

Quantifying the uncertainty of eddy covariance fluxes due to the use of different software packages and combinations of processing steps in two contrasting ecosystems

Ivan Mammarella, Olli Peltola, Annika Nordbo, Leena Järvi, and Üllar Rannik

Related authors

Temporal dynamics and environmental controls of carbon dioxide and methane fluxes measured by the eddy covariance method over a boreal river
Aki Vähä, Timo Vesala, Sofya Guseva, Anders Lindroth, Andreas Lorke, Sally MacIntyre, and Ivan Mammarella
Biogeosciences, 22, 1651–1671, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1651-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1651-2025, 2025
Short summary
Does increased spatial replication above heterogeneous agroforestry improve the representativeness of eddy covariance measurements?
José Ángel Callejas-Rodelas, Alexander Knohl, Ivan Mammarella, Timo Vesala, Olli Peltola, and Christian Markwitz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-810,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-810, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Explainable machine learning for modeling of net ecosystem exchange in boreal forests
Ekaterina Ezhova, Topi Laanti, Anna Lintunen, Pasi Kolari, Tuomo Nieminen, Ivan Mammarella, Keijo Heljanko, and Markku Kulmala
Biogeosciences, 22, 257–288, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-257-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-257-2025, 2025
Short summary
X-BASE: the first terrestrial carbon and water flux products from an extended data-driven scaling framework, FLUXCOM-X
Jacob A. Nelson, Sophia Walther, Fabian Gans, Basil Kraft, Ulrich Weber, Kimberly Novick, Nina Buchmann, Mirco Migliavacca, Georg Wohlfahrt, Ladislav Šigut, Andreas Ibrom, Dario Papale, Mathias Göckede, Gregory Duveiller, Alexander Knohl, Lukas Hörtnagl, Russell L. Scott, Jiří Dušek, Weijie Zhang, Zayd Mahmoud Hamdi, Markus Reichstein, Sergio Aranda-Barranco, Jonas Ardö, Maarten Op de Beeck, Dave Billesbach, David Bowling, Rosvel Bracho, Christian Brümmer, Gustau Camps-Valls, Shiping Chen, Jamie Rose Cleverly, Ankur Desai, Gang Dong, Tarek S. El-Madany, Eugenie Susanne Euskirchen, Iris Feigenwinter, Marta Galvagno, Giacomo A. Gerosa, Bert Gielen, Ignacio Goded, Sarah Goslee, Christopher Michael Gough, Bernard Heinesch, Kazuhito Ichii, Marcin Antoni Jackowicz-Korczynski, Anne Klosterhalfen, Sara Knox, Hideki Kobayashi, Kukka-Maaria Kohonen, Mika Korkiakoski, Ivan Mammarella, Mana Gharun, Riccardo Marzuoli, Roser Matamala, Stefan Metzger, Leonardo Montagnani, Giacomo Nicolini, Thomas O'Halloran, Jean-Marc Ourcival, Matthias Peichl, Elise Pendall, Borja Ruiz Reverter, Marilyn Roland, Simone Sabbatini, Torsten Sachs, Marius Schmidt, Christopher R. Schwalm, Ankit Shekhar, Richard Silberstein, Maria Lucia Silveira, Donatella Spano, Torbern Tagesson, Gianluca Tramontana, Carlo Trotta, Fabio Turco, Timo Vesala, Caroline Vincke, Domenico Vitale, Enrique R. Vivoni, Yi Wang, William Woodgate, Enrico A. Yepez, Junhui Zhang, Donatella Zona, and Martin Jung
Biogeosciences, 21, 5079–5115, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5079-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5079-2024, 2024
Short summary
Ozone dry deposition through plant stomata: Multi-model comparison with flux observations and the role of water stress as part of AQMEII4 Activity 2
Anam M. Khan, Olivia E. Clifton, Jesse O. Bash, Sam Bland, Nathan Booth, Philip Cheung, Lisa Emberson, Johannes Flemming, Erick Fredj, Stefano Galmarini, Laurens Ganzeveld, Orestis Gazetas, Ignacio Goded, Christian Hogrefe, Christopher D. Holmes, Laszlo Horvath, Vincent Huijnen, Qian Li, Paul A. Makar, Ivan Mammarella, Giovanni Manca, J. William Munger, Juan L. Perez-Camanyo, Jonathan Pleim, Limei Ran, Roberto San Jose, Donna Schwede, Sam J. Silva, Ralf Staebler, Shihan Sun, Amos P. K. Tai, Eran Tas, Timo Vesala, Tamas Weidinger, Zhiyong Wu, Leiming Zhang, and Paul C. Stoy
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3038,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3038, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Data Processing and Information Retrieval
Digitization and calibration of historical solar absorption infrared spectra from the Jungfraujoch site
Jamal Makkor, Mathias Palm, Matthias Buschmann, Emmanuel Mahieu, Martyn P. Chipperfield, and Justus Notholt
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 1105–1114, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1105-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1105-2025, 2025
Short summary
Direct high-precision radon quantification for interpreting high-frequency greenhouse gas measurements
Dafina Kikaj, Edward Chung, Alan D. Griffiths, Scott D. Chambers, Grant Forster, Angelina Wenger, Penelope Pickers, Chris Rennick, Simon O'Doherty, Joseph Pitt, Kieran Stanley, Dickon Young, Leigh S. Fleming, Karina Adcock, Emmal Safi, and Tim Arnold
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 151–175, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-151-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-151-2025, 2025
Short summary
Resolving the contributions of local emissions to measured concentrations: a method comparison
Taylor D. Edwards, Yee Ka Wong, Cheol-Jeon Heong, Jonathan M. Wang, Yushan Su, and Greg J. Evans
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2488,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2488, 2024
Short summary
Intercomparison of fast airborne ozone instruments to measure eddy covariance fluxes: spatial variability in deposition at the ocean surface and evidence for cloud processing
Randall Chiu, Florian Obersteiner, Alessandro Franchin, Teresa Campos, Adriana Bailey, Christopher Webster, Andreas Zahn, and Rainer Volkamer
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5731–5746, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5731-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5731-2024, 2024
Short summary
Field assessments on the impact of CO2 concentration fluctuations along with complex-terrain flows on the estimation of the net ecosystem exchange of temperate forests
Dexiong Teng, Jiaojun Zhu, Tian Gao, Fengyuan Yu, Yuan Zhu, Xinhua Zhou, and Bai Yang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5581–5599, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5581-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5581-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Aubinet, M., Vesala, T., and Papale, D.: Eddy Covariance: A Practical Guide to Measurement and Data Analysis, Springer Netherlands, 2012.
Aubinet, M., Joly, L., Loustau, D., De Ligne, A., Chopin, H., Cousin, J., Chauvin, N., Decarpenterie, T., and Gross, P.: Dimensioning IRGA gas sampling systems: laboratory and field experiments, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 1361–1367, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-1361-2016, 2016.
Burba, G.: Eddy Covariance Method for Scientific, Industrial, Agricultural and Regulatory Applications, A Field Book on Measuring Ecosystem Gas Exchange and Areal Emission Rates, ISBN 978-0-615-76827-4, LI-COR Biosciences, Lincoln, Nebraska, 332 pp., 2013
Burba, G. G., McDermitt, D. K., Grelle, A., Anderson, D. J., and Xu, L.: Addressing the influence of instrument surface heat exchange on the measurements of CO2 flux from open-path gas analyzers, Glob. Change Biol., 14, 1854–1876, 2008.
Download
Short summary
In this study we have performed an inter-comparison between EddyUH and EddyPro, two public and commonly used software packages for eddy covariance data processing and calculation. The aims are to estimate the flux uncertainty due to the use of different software packages, and to assess the most critical processing steps, determining the largest deviations in the calculated fluxes. We focus not only on water vapour and carbon dioxide fluxes, but also on the methane flux.
Share