TY - JOUR
T1 - Point-to-Grid Conversion in Flux Footprints
T2 - Implications of Method Choice and Spatial Resolution for Regional-Scale Studies
AU - McCombs, Alexandria G.
AU - Hiscox, April L.
AU - Suyker, Andrew E.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank Dr. Ankur Desai, Dr. Michael Hodgson, and anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback during the writing of this manuscript. The station data used in this analysis was provided by the AmeriFlux Network, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. Observations collected at US–ARM site are supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Atmospheric System Research and Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Programs, under Award Number DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer Nature B.V.
PY - 2019/9/15
Y1 - 2019/9/15
N2 - Flux-footprint modelling is commonly used for determining source areas of land–atmosphere gas-exchange observations from a single meteorological tower to determine the relative flux contribution of different areas within the station fetch. In doing so, a conversion from a continuous function to a two-dimensional spatial representation takes place prior to the interpretation of results. This interpreted result is commonly used to validate satellite regional-scale, remote-sensing-based, gas-exchange models. However, little attention has been paid to exactly how the conversion is performed. The conversion to a raster data model can result in the loss of information. This loss can be cell size dependent. Therefore, it is important that the spatial-conversion method used is appropriate for the specific application. We present here an assessment of the influence of spatial resolution (i.e., cell size) and conversion method on the accuracy of modelled flux footprints using tower-based flux instrumentation. Five methods for aggregating flux footprints to a two-dimensional grid are presented and a sensitivity analysis is performed. Two well-validated flux-footprint models are used at spatial resolutions ranging from 10 m to 1000 m. Results indicate significant data loss, change of apparent maximum location, and change in the representative fetch of the point measurement. Furthermore, these results are measurement site dependent. This often-overlooked step in the conversion of a flux-footprint model to a grid is important. These results provide guidelines for those utilizing a flux-footprint model to validate spatial models for assessing gas exchange.
AB - Flux-footprint modelling is commonly used for determining source areas of land–atmosphere gas-exchange observations from a single meteorological tower to determine the relative flux contribution of different areas within the station fetch. In doing so, a conversion from a continuous function to a two-dimensional spatial representation takes place prior to the interpretation of results. This interpreted result is commonly used to validate satellite regional-scale, remote-sensing-based, gas-exchange models. However, little attention has been paid to exactly how the conversion is performed. The conversion to a raster data model can result in the loss of information. This loss can be cell size dependent. Therefore, it is important that the spatial-conversion method used is appropriate for the specific application. We present here an assessment of the influence of spatial resolution (i.e., cell size) and conversion method on the accuracy of modelled flux footprints using tower-based flux instrumentation. Five methods for aggregating flux footprints to a two-dimensional grid are presented and a sensitivity analysis is performed. Two well-validated flux-footprint models are used at spatial resolutions ranging from 10 m to 1000 m. Results indicate significant data loss, change of apparent maximum location, and change in the representative fetch of the point measurement. Furthermore, these results are measurement site dependent. This often-overlooked step in the conversion of a flux-footprint model to a grid is important. These results provide guidelines for those utilizing a flux-footprint model to validate spatial models for assessing gas exchange.
KW - Flux footprint
KW - Rasterization
KW - Sensitivity analysis
KW - Spatial resolution
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067226617&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067226617&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10546-019-00455-2
DO - 10.1007/s10546-019-00455-2
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85067226617
SN - 0006-8314
VL - 172
SP - 457
EP - 479
JO - Boundary-Layer Meteorology
JF - Boundary-Layer Meteorology
IS - 3
ER -