## 4 Results
### Parameterization of the SEBS  
A polynomial was fitted for forest Lorey's height (\(Y_{L}\)) _versus_ forest AGB (\(X\)) based on both DBH and tree height measurements from 119 plots (out of the total 133 plots). The FAI (\(Y_{FAI}\)) _versus_ forest AGB was based on tree height, and the FBH and crown width measurements from 70 plots (Figure 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Inputs**} & \(S_{\rm I}(H_{+285^{\circ}})\) & \(S_{\rm I}(H_{-25^{\circ}})\) & \(S_{\rm I}(H_{+5\rm{K}})\) & \(S_{\rm I}(H_{-5\rm{K}})\) \\  & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline \(d\) & 0.01 & 0.01 & - & - \\ \(z_{\rm 0m}\) & 21.32 & \(-\)19.93 & - & - \\ NDVI & 0.62 & \(-\)0.74 & - & - \\ LAI & 1.86 & \(-\)0.48 & - & - \\ Albedo & \(-\)0.74 & 0.12 & - & - \\ LST & - & - & 78.67 & \(-\)65.78 \\ \(T_{\rm a}\) & - & - & \(-\)23.53 & 19.39 \\ \(P\) & 16.82 & \(-\)18.93 & - & - \\ \(u\) & 12.25 & \(-\)10.25 & - & - \\ \(H_{\rm h}\) & 0.53 & 0.48 & - & - \\ \(R_{\rm s}\) & 6.67 & \(-\)7.35 & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The sensitivities of sensible heat flux (\(H\)) using different SEBS input parameters as a fraction of their reference values. For the Lorey's height (\(Y_{L}\)), the fitting regression was, as follows:  
\[Y_{L}=1.055\times X^{0.544} \tag{23}\]  
where \(R^{2}=0.52\) and RMSE = 2.35 meters (m). For the FAI (\(Y_{FAI}\)), the fitting regression was, as follows:  
\[Y_{FAI}=0.133\times X^{0.539} \tag{24}\]  
with \(R^{2}=0.36\) and RMSE = 0.35 (scalar). The interannual forest Lorey's height and the FAI parameters were derived from Equations (23)-(24), and the corresponding forest AGB dynamics were estimated using the Biome-BGC model calibrated using the MOD_17 model. Through the use of Equations (14)-(21) and the eight-day GLASS LAI products, the corresponding eight-day \(d\) and \(z_{0\text{m}}\) were derived using the SD00 model (the statistics for the interannual forest Lorey's height, \(d\) and \(z_{0\text{m}}\) are shown in Table 2). The retrievals were further applied in order to estimate eight-day \(z_{0\text{h}}\) values using the \(kB^{-1}\) model. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Year** & \(\mathbf{h_{\text{L}}}\) & \(\mathbf{d_{\text{R}}}\) & \(\mathbf{d_{\text{M}}}\) & \(\mathbf{z_{0\text{m}/\text{R}}}\) & \(\mathbf{z_{0\text{m}/\text{M}}}\) \\ \hline
2000 & 13.39 & 6.52–7.62 & 6.84 & 1.32–1.46 & 1.36 \\
2001 & 13.62 & 7.28–10.51 & 8.50 & 0.72–1.48 & 1.19 \\
2002 & 13.96 & 7.48–11.10 & 9.07 & 0.65–1.49 & 1.13 \\
2003 & 14.30 & 7.69–11.39 & 9.25 & 0.67–1.51 & 1.16 \\
2004 & 14.58 & 7.86–11.41 & 9.36 & 0.73–1.53 & 1.20 \\
2005 & 14.87 & 8.04–11.09 & 9.92 & 0.66–1.55 & 1.13 \\
2006 & 15.02 & 8.12–12.05 & 10.06 & 0.68–1.55 & 1.12 \\
2007 & 15.24 & 8.25–12.35 & 10.22 & 0.66–1.57 & 1.14 \\
2008 & 15.44 & 8.38–12.49 & 10.32 & 0.68–1.58 & 1.16 \\
2009 & 15.55 & 8.44–12.55 & 10.19 & 0.69–1.58 & 1.21 \\
2010 & 15.72 & 7.79–9.18 & 8.22 & 0.71–1.61 & 1.48 \\
2011 & 15.90 & 8.65–12.81 & 10.44 & 0.71–1.60 & 1.22 \\
2012 & 16.14 & 8.80–13.14 & 10.90 & 0.69–1.62 & 1.17 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Statistics for the interannual forest Lorey’s heights (\(\mathbf{h_{\text{L}}}\)) (unit: meter), \(\mathbf{d}\) (\(\mathbf{d_{\text{R}}}\): value range; \(\mathbf{d_{\text{M}}}\): mean value) (unit: meter), and \(z_{0\text{m}}\) (\(z_{0\text{m}/\text{R}}\): value range; \(\mathbf{z_{0\text{m}/\text{M}}}\): mean value) (unit: meter) from 2000 to 2012 at the EC site. Figure 2: The fitting regression of forest Lorey’s height (**a**) and the frontal area index (FAI) (**b**) against the forest aboveground biomass (AGB) based on measurements.