Dry Deposition Monitoring in Europe

Between 1993 and 1999 two EU funded projects wereexecuted aimed at (i) the development of drydeposition monitoring methods for core sites andlarge scale application, (ii) the installation andrunning of three core sites in Europe and (iii) the improvement and validation of models used forregional application. This article provides anoverview of the development of depositionmonitoring stations and the main results of thethree core sites, which were operated between1995 and 1998. Furthermore, the results of thedevelopment of a low cost monitoring system arepresented. Continuous measurements were made ofboth wet and dry deposition of sulphur andnitrogen components and base cations. The 4 yearsof data show a decrease in sulphur loads and notrend for the other components. It is shown thatthe surface affinities for sulphur depositionalso changed during the years, underpinning theneed for dry deposition monitoring. A conditionaltime average gradient system was successfullydeveloped and tested and provides a good meansfor low cost monitoring of dry deposition fluxes.The costs can be reduced by a factor of 3–4 without losing the accuracy of the annual average gas fluxes.     

基于微气象学方法的麦田CO2和O3通量的观测与模拟

利用涡度相关技术对长江三角洲地区冬小麦麦田白天时段CO₂和O₃通量进行连续观测,分析其变化特征.引入并参数化Jarvis乘法模型,预测冬小麦冠层尺度CO₂和O₃通量.结果表明：整个观测期间,麦田CO₂浓度和通量的范围分别为372.3~487.1μL/L和-0.4~-40.3μmol/（m²·s）,均值分别为402.6μL/L和-13.4μmol/（m²·s）.O₃浓度和通量的范围分别为4.6~116.6nL/L和-0.2~-20.7nmol/（m²·s）,均值分别为50.9nL/L和-6.8nmol/（m²·s）.CO₂和O₃通量最高值出现在冬小麦的孕穗期和开花期,该时期冬小麦光合能力最强,对CO₂与O₃的吸收最大.冬小麦CO₂和O₃通量总体上呈相似的日变化模式,上午CO₂通量明显高于下午,上午O₃通量却低于下午.温度、水汽压差、光合有效辐射、物候期等环境因子驱动下的冬小麦冠层通量与叶片气孔导度具有相似的限制机制,利用修订后的Jarvis乘法模型模拟了CO₂和O₃通量,并与实测值进行对比验证,表明修订后的模型分别解释了CO₂和O₃通量62%和60%的变异性,适用于本地冬小麦CO₂和O₃通量的模拟.     

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND CANOPY RESISTANCE AT AN UNDEVELOPED PRAIRIE IN A HUMID SUBTROPICAL CLIMATE1

ABSTRACT: Reliable estimates of evapotranspiration from areas of wildland vegetation are needed for many types of water-resource investigations. However, little is known about surface fluxes from many areally important vegetation types, and relatively few comparisons have been made to examine how well evapotranspiration models can predict evapotranspiration for soil-, climate-, or vegetation-types that differ from those under which the models have been calibrated. In this investigation at a prairie site in west-central Florida, latent heat flux (λE) computed from the energy balance and alternatively by eddy covariance during a 15-month period differed by 4 percent and 7 percent on hourly and daily time scales, respectively. Annual evapotranspiration computed from the energy balance and by eddy covariance were 978 and 944 mm, respectively. An hourly Penman-Monteith (PM) evapotranspiration model with stomatal control predicated on water-vapor-pressure deficit at canopy level, incoming solar radiation intensity, and soil water deficit was developed and calibrated using surface fluxes from eddy covariance. Model-predicted λE agreed closely with λE computed from the energy balance except when moisture from dew or precipitation covered vegetation surfaces. Finally, an hourly PM model developed for an Amazonian pasture predicted λE for the Florida prairie with unexpected reliability. Additional comparisons of PM-type models that have been developed for differing types of short vegetation could aid in assessing interchangeability of such models.