Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Determining Meaningful Differences for SMACEX Eddy Covariance Measurements

Determining Meaningful Differences for SMACEX Eddy Covariance Measurements Two eddy covariance instrument comparison studies were conducted before and after the Soil Moisture––Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (SMACEX) field campaign to 1) determine if observations from multiple sensors were equivalent for the measured variables over a uniform surface and to 2) determine a least significant difference (LSD) value for each variable to discriminate between daily and hourly differences in latent and sensible heat and carbon dioxide fluxes, friction velocity, and standard deviation of the vertical wind velocity from eddy covariance instruments placed in different locations within the study area. The studies were conducted in early June over an alfalfa field and in mid-September over a short grass field. Several statistical exploratory, graphical, and multiple-comparison procedures were used to evaluate each daily variable. Daily total or average data were used to estimate a pooled standard error and corresponding LSD values at the P == 0.05 and P == 0.01 levels using univariate procedures. There were no significant sensor differences in any of the daily measurements for either intercomparison period. Hourly averaged data were used to estimate a pooled standard error and corresponding LSD values at the P == 0.05 and P == 0.01 levels using mixed model procedures. Sensor differences for pre- and post-intercomparisons were minimal for hourly and daily values of CO 2 , water vapor, sensible heat, friction velocity, and standard deviation for vertical wind velocity. Computed LSD values were used to determine significant daily differences and threshold values for the variables monitored during the SMACEX campaign. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Hydrometeorology American Meteorological Society

Determining Meaningful Differences for SMACEX Eddy Covariance Measurements

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-meteorological-society/determining-meaningful-differences-for-smacex-eddy-covariance-xH2M9rx50r
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 American Meteorological Society
ISSN
1525-7541
DOI
10.1175/JHM458.1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Two eddy covariance instrument comparison studies were conducted before and after the Soil Moisture––Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (SMACEX) field campaign to 1) determine if observations from multiple sensors were equivalent for the measured variables over a uniform surface and to 2) determine a least significant difference (LSD) value for each variable to discriminate between daily and hourly differences in latent and sensible heat and carbon dioxide fluxes, friction velocity, and standard deviation of the vertical wind velocity from eddy covariance instruments placed in different locations within the study area. The studies were conducted in early June over an alfalfa field and in mid-September over a short grass field. Several statistical exploratory, graphical, and multiple-comparison procedures were used to evaluate each daily variable. Daily total or average data were used to estimate a pooled standard error and corresponding LSD values at the P == 0.05 and P == 0.01 levels using univariate procedures. There were no significant sensor differences in any of the daily measurements for either intercomparison period. Hourly averaged data were used to estimate a pooled standard error and corresponding LSD values at the P == 0.05 and P == 0.01 levels using mixed model procedures. Sensor differences for pre- and post-intercomparisons were minimal for hourly and daily values of CO 2 , water vapor, sensible heat, friction velocity, and standard deviation for vertical wind velocity. Computed LSD values were used to determine significant daily differences and threshold values for the variables monitored during the SMACEX campaign.

Journal

Journal of HydrometeorologyAmerican Meteorological Society

Published: May 1, 2004

References