U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Soil and Water Management Research: Bushland, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    CPRL
                        CPRL Home
                                    Livestock Nutrient Management Research UnitSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Bushland, Texas Conservation and Production Research Laboratory Soil and Water Management Research Research Publications at this Location





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Title:   Author  item
                                            Evett, Steven

                                                         - *Steve*item
                                            Gowda, Prasannaitem
                                            Marek, Garyitem
                                            Alfieri, Josephitem
                                            Kustas, William

                                                         - *Bill*item
                                            Moorhead, Jerryitem
                                            Brauer, David
  Submitted to: American Geophysical Union
                                    Publication Type: Abstract Only
                                    Publication Acceptance Date: 5/23/2014
                                    Publication  Date: 12/14/2014
                                    Citation: Evett, S.R., Gowda, P., Marek, G.W., Alfieri, J.G., Kustas, W.P., Moorhead, J.E., Brauer, D.K. 2014. Evapotranspiration: Mass balance measurements compared with flux estimation methods. American Geophysical Union meeting {abstract]2014 AGU meeting, December 15-19, 2014, San Francisco, CA. Interpretive Summary:
                                Technical Abstract: Evapotranspiration (ET) may be measured by mass balance methods and estimated by flux sensing methods. The mass balance methods are typically restricted in terms of the area that can be represented (e.g., surface area of weighing lysimeter (LYS) or equivalent representative area of neutron probe (NP) and soil core sampling techniques), and can be biased with respect to ET from the surrounding area. The area represented by flux sensing methods such as eddy covariance (EC) is typically estimated with a flux footprint/source area model. The dimension, position of, and relative contribution of upwind areas within the source area are mainly influenced by sensor height, wind speed, atmospheric stability and wind direction. Footprints for EC sensors positioned several meters above the canopy are often larger than can be economically covered by mass balance methods. Moreover, footprints move with atmospheric conditions and wind direction to cover different field areas over time while mass balance methods are static in space. Thus, EC systems typically sample a much greater field area over time compared with mass balance methods. Spatial variability of surface cover can thus complicate interpretation of flux estimates from EC systems. The most commonly used flux estimation method is EC; and EC estimates of latent heat energy (representing ET) and sensible heat fluxes combined are typically smaller than the available energy from net radiation and soil heat flux (commonly referred to as lack of energy balance closure). Reasons for this are the subject of ongoing research. We compare ET from LYS, NP and EC methods applied to field crops for three years at Bushland, Texas (35° 11’ N, 102° 06’ W, 1170 m elevation above MSL) to illustrate the potential problems with and comparative advantages of all three methods. In particular, we examine how networks of neutron probe access tubes can be representative of field areas large enough to be equivalent in size to EC footprints, and how the ET data from these methods can address bias and accuracy issues.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov