## 3 Results  
### Measured Data and Climatology  
The models' performance has been analyzed based on the outputs of the 2020/2021 campaigns. During 2021, ten field campaigns collected chamber data from 25 February to 30 October while, due to COVID restrictions, only 5 field campaigns collected data in 2020 from 15 March to 14 September (Table 2). Each campaign included between two and five measurements of NEE and R\({}_{\rm exo}\) fluxes per plot, excluding the winter campaign of February \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Statistic** & **AIC** & \(p\)**-Value** & **RMSE** & **R\({}^{2}\)** \\ \hline Weight & 3/8 & 2/8 & 2/8 & 1/8 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Values of the weighting factors used to select the best model based on their performance. due to the reduced hours of light. The scarcity of data per plot forced the grouping of measurements every two campaigns as defined in the methodology. Considering only control plots, the average campaign values per site show a Gaussian distribution of PAR, GPP, and temperature peaking in July for both CL and CR for both years (Table 2). A continuous decreasing trend of WTD can also be observed from February /May to September/October, with a slight increase in May 2021 (Table 2) matching with the highest cumulative precipitation of the year (Figure 5). Compared to previous years, a progressive drawdown of WTD was observed in CR, reflected in the annual average dropping from \(-12.4\) cm (2018) to \(-15.8\) cm (2021). Although this may appear to be a slight change, it represents a significant variation within the intra-annual oscillations of WTD. Between the second half of January and the first one of February, a rise in the WTD is observed within previous years (2018-2019) in CR, with the WTD reaching near-surface values (\(-1\)--\(7\) cm). This peak was displaced in 2020 to the second week of May, and it became hard to identify during 2021, a year with relatively stable values of WTD from January to May (Figure 5). The drawdown during summer is present in all years (2018-2021), reaching its lowest WTD value in 2021 at 25 cm below the surface. Meanwhile, the CL site's annual average WTD was lower in 2020 (\(-20.3\) cm) and increased in 2021 to \(-16.7\) cm. The high 2021 average was thanks to a not-so-low WTD value from January to July, oscillating between \(-5\) and \(-14\) cm. The same was recorded for 2019, with WTD values always higher than \(-10\) cm. The rise in WTD during winter-spring seasons, while it reached the surface level in 2020, only lasted one month that year; 2021  
\begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{(k)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Date of the Chamber Converging (DDMMO)**} \\ \hline  & 3020 & 1000 & 12005 & 1700 & 3007 & 1400 \\ \hline No & 3/10 & 4/12 & 5/15 & 3/11 & 4/12 \\ \hline Jump & 6.51 & 18.58 & 28.48 & 23.16 & 25.9 \\ \hline WTD & \(-1.00\) & \(-2.04\) & \(-2.348\) & \(-2.76\) & \(-2.334\) \\ \hline \(GT\)(\(\pm 50\)) & \(-1.07\pm 0.32\) & \(-4.32\pm 1.16\) & \(-7.65\pm 2.99\) & \(-12.04\pm 1.15\) & \(-7.04\pm 1.22\) \\ \hline \hline No & 3/7 & 4/12 & 4/12 & 3/11 & 3/11 \\ \hline Jump & 5.84 & 17.83 & 28.10 & 23.61 & 25.74 \\ \hline WTD & \(-5.38\) & \(-1.09\) & \(-13.57\) & \(-18.31\) & \(-16.41\) \\ \hline PAR & 801 & 123 & 327 & 124 & 806 \\ \hline \(GT\)(\(\pm 50\)) & \(-2.40\pm 0.23\) & \(-4.80\pm 0.89\) & \(-5.88\pm 1.30\) & \(-683\pm 1.48\) & \(-5.62\pm 1.15\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} 
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Data of the Chamber Converging (DDMMO)**} \\ \hline
**2021** & **2020** & **3020** & **1005** & **3020** & **1005** & **1005** & **6010** & **6010** & **3020** \\ \hline No & 2.76 & 3.79 & 4/12 & 4/12 & 3/9 & 5/15 & 4/12 & 3/9 & 3/9 & 3/9 \\ \hline Temp & 15.21 & 21.65 &WTD did not reach the surface, but the near-surface levels were maintained during the first five months, explaining the higher annual average (Figure 5). In 2021, WTD recovered the 2019 behaviour and levels for the CL site.