Modelling of the OASIS energy flux measurements using two canopy concepts

Two land surface schemes, SCAM and CSIRO9, were used to model the measured energy fluxes during the OASIS (Observations At Several Interacting Scales) field program. The measurements were taken at six sites along a 100 km rainfall gradient. Two types of simulations were conducted: (1) offline simula...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Boundary-layer meteorology 2003-04, Vol.107 (1), p.49-79
Main Authors: FINKELE, K, KATZFEY, J. J, KOWALCZYK, E. A, MCGREGOR, J. L, ZHANG, L, RAUPACH, M. R
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aerodynamics
Boundary layer
Canopies
Climate models
Convection, turbulence, diffusion. Boundary layer structure and dynamics
Earth, ocean, space
Evaporation
Evapotranspiration
Exact sciences and technology
External geophysics
Fluctuations
Meteorology
Simulation
Vegetation
Vegetation cover
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Two land surface schemes, SCAM and CSIRO9, were used to model the measured energy fluxes during the OASIS (Observations At Several Interacting Scales) field program. The measurements were taken at six sites along a 100 km rainfall gradient. Two types of simulations were conducted: (1) offline simulations forced with measured atmospheric input data at each of the six sites, and (2) regional simulations with the two land surface schemes coupled to the regional climate model DARLAM. The two land surface schemes employ two different canopy modelling concepts: in SCAM the vegetation is conceptually above the ground surface, while CSIRO9 employs the more commonly used `horizontally tiled' approach in which the vegetation cover is modelled by conceptually placing it beside bare ground. Both schemes utilize the same below-ground components (soil hydrological and thermal models) to reduce the comparison to canopy processes only. However, the ground heat flux, soil evaporation and evapotranspiration are parameterised by the two canopy treatments somewhat differently. Both canopy concepts reproduce the measured energy fluxes. SCAM has a slightly higher root-mean standard error in the model-measurement comparison for the ground heat flux. The mean surface radiative temperature simulated by SCAM is approximately 1K lower than in the CSIRO9 simulations. However, the soil and vegetation temperatures (which contribute to the radiative temperature) varied more in the CSIRO9 simulations. These larger variations are due to the absence of a representation of the aerodynamic interactions between vegetation and ground.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
ISSN:0006-8314
1573-1472
DOI:10.1023/A:1021544607688