首页> 外文期刊>Agricultural and Forest Meteorology >Comparison of gas analyzers for eddy covariance: Effects of analyzer type and spectral corrections on fluxes
【24h】

Comparison of gas analyzers for eddy covariance: Effects of analyzer type and spectral corrections on fluxes

机译:涡流协方差气体分析仪的比较:分析仪类型和光谱校正对助熔剂的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The eddy covariance technique (EC) is used at hundreds of field sites worldwide to measure trace gas exchange between the surface and the atmosphere. Data quality and correction methods for EC have been studied empirically and theoretically for many years. The recent development of new gas analyzers has led to an increase in technological options for users. Open-path (no inlet tube) and closed-path (long inlet tube) sensors have been used for a long time, whereas enclosed-path (short inlet tube) sensors are relatively new. We tested the comparability of fluxes calculated from five different gas analyzers including two open-path (LI-7500 A from LI-COR, IRGASON from Campbell), two enclosed-path (CPEC200 from Campbell, LI-7200 from LI-COR), and one closed-path (2311-f from Picarro) analyzers, which were all located on a single tower at an irrigated alfalfa field in Davis, CA. To effectively compare sensors with different tube characteristics we used three different spectral correction methods. We found that all sensors, regardless of type, can be used to measure fluxes if appropriate corrections are applied and quality control measures are taken. However, the comparability strongly depended on the gas (CO_2 or H_2O) and the correction method. Averagedifferences were below 4% for CO_2 fluxes using any spectral correction method, but for H_2O average differences were between 4% and 13% for the different methods. The magnitude of corrections also varied strongly, especially for water vapor fluxes. This study does not identify the best sensor, but rather weighs the benefits and difficulties of each sensor and sensor type. Our findings show that enclosed and closed-path gas analyzers that measure water vapor with inlet tubes experience large high frequency attenuation and should be corrected with empirical correction methods. This information presented here about different the diverse sensors be considered by investigators when choosing a sensor for a site or when analyzing EC measurements from multiple sites.
机译:涡旋协方差技术(EC)用于全球数百个现场网站,以测量表面和大气之间的痕量气体交换。多年来已经经验和理论地研究了EC的数据质量和校正方法。最近的新天然气分析仪的发展导致用户的技术选择增加。长时间使用开放式路径(无入口管)和闭合路径(长入口管)传感器,而封闭式路径(短入口管)传感器相对较新。我们测试了来自五种不同的气体分析仪计算的通量的可比性,包括两个开放式路径(Li-7500 a从Li-Cor,Irgason从Campbell的Irgason),两个封闭式路径(来自坎贝尔的CPEC200,Li-Cor),和一个闭路(来自Picarro 2311-F)分析仪,所有人都位于戴维斯,加利福尼斯州灌溉的紫花苜蓿领域。有效地比较不同管特性的传感器,我们使用了三种不同的光谱校正方法。我们发现所有传感器,无论型号如何,都可用于测量助焊剂,如果应用适当的校正,并且采取质量控制措施。然而,强烈依赖于气体(CO_2或H_2O)和校正方法的可比性。使用任何光谱校正方法的CO_2通量的平均值低于4%,但对于H_2O平均差异为不同方法的4%和13%。校正的幅度也强烈变化,特别是对于水蒸气通量。本研究不识别最佳传感器,而是重视每个传感器和传感器类型的益处和困难。我们的研究结果表明,用进水管测量水蒸气的封闭和闭路气体分析仪经历大的高频衰减,应用经验校正方法校正。在为网站选择传感器或分析来自多个站点的EC测量时,调查人员考虑了此处的此处提供了这些信息。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号