A site-level comparison of lysimeter and eddy covariance flux measurements of evapotranspiration
- Journal Article
Rights / licenseCreative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Accurate measurements of evapotranspiration are required for many meteorological, climatological, ecological, and hydrological research applications and developments. Here we examine and compare two well-established methods to determine evapotranspiration at the site level: lysimeter-based measurements (EL) and eddy covariance (EC) flux measurements (EEC). The analyses are based on parallel measurements carried out with these two methods at the research catchment Rietholzbach in northeastern Switzerland, and cover the time period of June 2009 to December 2015. The measurements are compared on various timescales, and with respect to a 40-year lysimeter-based evapotranspiration time series. Overall, the lysimeter and EC measurements agree well, especially on the annual timescale. On that timescale, the long-term lysimeter measurements also correspond well with catchment water-balance estimates of evapotranspiration. This highlights the representativeness of the site-level lysimeter and EC measurements for the entire catchment despite their comparatively small source areas and the heterogeneous land use and topography within the catchment. Furthermore, we identify that lack of reliable EC measurements using open-path gas analyzers during and following precipitation events (due to limitations of the measurement technique under these conditions) significantly contributes to an underestimation of EEC and to the overall energy balance gap at the site. Show more
Journal / seriesHydrology and Earth System Sciences
Pages / Article No.
Organisational unit03778 - Seneviratne, Sonia / Seneviratne, Sonia
Related publications and datasets
Is supplemented by: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/185966
Is supplemented by: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000282395
Is supplemented by: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1809-2017-supplement
Is referenced by: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1809-2017-corrigendum
NotesPlease read the corrigendum first before accessing the article.
MoreShow all metadata