Quantification of surface energy fluxes from a small water body using scintillometry and eddy covariance

Ryan McGloin, Hamish McGowan, David McJannet, Freeman Cook, Andrey Sogachev, Stewart Burn

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Accurate quantification of evaporation from small water storages is essential for water management and planning, particularly in water-scarce regions. In order to ascertain suitable methods for direct measurement of evaporation from small water bodies, this study presents a comparison of eddy covariance and scintillometry measurements from a reservoir in southeast Queensland, Australia. The work presented expands on a short study presented by McJannet et al. (2011) to include comparisons of eddy covariance measurements and scintillometer-derived predictions of surface energy fluxes under a wide range of seasonal weather conditions. In this study, analysis was undertaken to ascertain whether important theoretical assumptions required for both techniques are valid in the complex environment of a small reservoir. Statistical comparison, energy balance closure, and the relationship between evaporation measurements and key environmental controls were used to compare the results of the two techniques. Reasonable agreement was shown between the sensible heat flux measurements from eddy covariance and scintillometry, while scintillometer-derived estimates of latent heat flux were approximately 21% greater than eddy covariance measurements. We suggest possible reasons for this difference and provide recommendations for further research for improving measurements of surface energy fluxes over small water bodies using eddy covariance and scintillometry. Key Points Source areas for Eddy covariance and scintillometry were on the water surface Reasonable agreement was shown between the sensible heat flux measurements Scintillometer estimates of latent heat flux were greater than eddy covariance
Original languageEnglish
JournalWater Resources Research
Volume50
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)494-513
ISSN0043-1397
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Keywords

  • ENVIRONMENTAL
  • LIMNOLOGY
  • WATER
  • QUALITY ASSESSMENT
  • FOOTPRINT ESTIMATION
  • BALANCE CLOSURE
  • BOUNDARY-LAYER
  • LARGE-APERTURE
  • PART I
  • EVAPORATION
  • MODEL
  • LAKE
  • HEAT
  • Eddy covariance
  • scintillometry
  • footprint
  • complex terrain
  • sensible heat flux
  • latent heat flux
  • Evaporation
  • Heat flux
  • Interfacial energy
  • Latent heat
  • Reservoirs (water)
  • Surface waters
  • Water management
  • Complex terrains
  • Sensible heat flux
  • Scintillation
  • Complex terrain
  • Footprint
  • Latent heat flux
  • Scintillometry

Cite this

McGloin, Ryan ; McGowan, Hamish ; McJannet, David ; Cook, Freeman ; Sogachev, Andrey ; Burn, Stewart. / Quantification of surface energy fluxes from a small water body using scintillometry and eddy covariance. In: Water Resources Research. 2014 ; Vol. 50, No. 1. pp. 494-513.
@article{ff099899a37741f990de085adebd7562,
title = "Quantification of surface energy fluxes from a small water body using scintillometry and eddy covariance",
abstract = "Accurate quantification of evaporation from small water storages is essential for water management and planning, particularly in water-scarce regions. In order to ascertain suitable methods for direct measurement of evaporation from small water bodies, this study presents a comparison of eddy covariance and scintillometry measurements from a reservoir in southeast Queensland, Australia. The work presented expands on a short study presented by McJannet et al. (2011) to include comparisons of eddy covariance measurements and scintillometer-derived predictions of surface energy fluxes under a wide range of seasonal weather conditions. In this study, analysis was undertaken to ascertain whether important theoretical assumptions required for both techniques are valid in the complex environment of a small reservoir. Statistical comparison, energy balance closure, and the relationship between evaporation measurements and key environmental controls were used to compare the results of the two techniques. Reasonable agreement was shown between the sensible heat flux measurements from eddy covariance and scintillometry, while scintillometer-derived estimates of latent heat flux were approximately 21{\%} greater than eddy covariance measurements. We suggest possible reasons for this difference and provide recommendations for further research for improving measurements of surface energy fluxes over small water bodies using eddy covariance and scintillometry. Key Points Source areas for Eddy covariance and scintillometry were on the water surface Reasonable agreement was shown between the sensible heat flux measurements Scintillometer estimates of latent heat flux were greater than eddy covariance",
keywords = "ENVIRONMENTAL, LIMNOLOGY, WATER, QUALITY ASSESSMENT, FOOTPRINT ESTIMATION, BALANCE CLOSURE, BOUNDARY-LAYER, LARGE-APERTURE, PART I, EVAPORATION, MODEL, LAKE, HEAT, Eddy covariance, scintillometry, footprint, complex terrain, sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, Evaporation, Heat flux, Interfacial energy, Latent heat, Reservoirs (water), Surface waters, Water management, Complex terrains, Sensible heat flux, Scintillation, Complex terrain, Footprint, Latent heat flux, Scintillometry",
author = "Ryan McGloin and Hamish McGowan and David McJannet and Freeman Cook and Andrey Sogachev and Stewart Burn",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1002/2013WR013899",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "494--513",
journal = "Water Resources Research",
issn = "0043-1397",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Quantification of surface energy fluxes from a small water body using scintillometry and eddy covariance. / McGloin, Ryan; McGowan, Hamish; McJannet, David; Cook, Freeman; Sogachev, Andrey; Burn, Stewart.

In: Water Resources Research, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2014, p. 494-513.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantification of surface energy fluxes from a small water body using scintillometry and eddy covariance

AU - McGloin, Ryan

AU - McGowan, Hamish

AU - McJannet, David

AU - Cook, Freeman

AU - Sogachev, Andrey

AU - Burn, Stewart

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Accurate quantification of evaporation from small water storages is essential for water management and planning, particularly in water-scarce regions. In order to ascertain suitable methods for direct measurement of evaporation from small water bodies, this study presents a comparison of eddy covariance and scintillometry measurements from a reservoir in southeast Queensland, Australia. The work presented expands on a short study presented by McJannet et al. (2011) to include comparisons of eddy covariance measurements and scintillometer-derived predictions of surface energy fluxes under a wide range of seasonal weather conditions. In this study, analysis was undertaken to ascertain whether important theoretical assumptions required for both techniques are valid in the complex environment of a small reservoir. Statistical comparison, energy balance closure, and the relationship between evaporation measurements and key environmental controls were used to compare the results of the two techniques. Reasonable agreement was shown between the sensible heat flux measurements from eddy covariance and scintillometry, while scintillometer-derived estimates of latent heat flux were approximately 21% greater than eddy covariance measurements. We suggest possible reasons for this difference and provide recommendations for further research for improving measurements of surface energy fluxes over small water bodies using eddy covariance and scintillometry. Key Points Source areas for Eddy covariance and scintillometry were on the water surface Reasonable agreement was shown between the sensible heat flux measurements Scintillometer estimates of latent heat flux were greater than eddy covariance

AB - Accurate quantification of evaporation from small water storages is essential for water management and planning, particularly in water-scarce regions. In order to ascertain suitable methods for direct measurement of evaporation from small water bodies, this study presents a comparison of eddy covariance and scintillometry measurements from a reservoir in southeast Queensland, Australia. The work presented expands on a short study presented by McJannet et al. (2011) to include comparisons of eddy covariance measurements and scintillometer-derived predictions of surface energy fluxes under a wide range of seasonal weather conditions. In this study, analysis was undertaken to ascertain whether important theoretical assumptions required for both techniques are valid in the complex environment of a small reservoir. Statistical comparison, energy balance closure, and the relationship between evaporation measurements and key environmental controls were used to compare the results of the two techniques. Reasonable agreement was shown between the sensible heat flux measurements from eddy covariance and scintillometry, while scintillometer-derived estimates of latent heat flux were approximately 21% greater than eddy covariance measurements. We suggest possible reasons for this difference and provide recommendations for further research for improving measurements of surface energy fluxes over small water bodies using eddy covariance and scintillometry. Key Points Source areas for Eddy covariance and scintillometry were on the water surface Reasonable agreement was shown between the sensible heat flux measurements Scintillometer estimates of latent heat flux were greater than eddy covariance

KW - ENVIRONMENTAL

KW - LIMNOLOGY

KW - WATER

KW - QUALITY ASSESSMENT

KW - FOOTPRINT ESTIMATION

KW - BALANCE CLOSURE

KW - BOUNDARY-LAYER

KW - LARGE-APERTURE

KW - PART I

KW - EVAPORATION

KW - MODEL

KW - LAKE

KW - HEAT

KW - Eddy covariance

KW - scintillometry

KW - footprint

KW - complex terrain

KW - sensible heat flux

KW - latent heat flux

KW - Evaporation

KW - Heat flux

KW - Interfacial energy

KW - Latent heat

KW - Reservoirs (water)

KW - Surface waters

KW - Water management

KW - Complex terrains

KW - Sensible heat flux

KW - Scintillation

KW - Complex terrain

KW - Footprint

KW - Latent heat flux

KW - Scintillometry

U2 - 10.1002/2013WR013899

DO - 10.1002/2013WR013899

M3 - Journal article

VL - 50

SP - 494

EP - 513

JO - Water Resources Research

JF - Water Resources Research

SN - 0043-1397

IS - 1

ER -