The effect of relative humidity on eddy covariance latent heat flux measurements and its implication for partitioning into transpiration and evaporation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the eddy covariance (EC) technique is a well-established method for measuring water fluxes (i.e., evaporation or 'evapotranspiration’, ET), the measurement is susceptible to many uncertainties. One such issue is the potential underestimation of ET when relative humidity (RH) is high (>70%), due to low-pass filtering with some EC systems. Yet, this underestimation for different types of EC systems (e.g. open-path or closed-path sensors) has not been characterized for synthesis datasets such as the widely used FLUXNET2015 dataset. Here, we assess the RH-associated underestimation of latent heat fluxes (LE, or ET) from different EC systems for 163 sites in the FLUXNET2015 dataset. We found that the LE underestimation is most apparent during hours when RH is higher than 70%, predominantly observed at sites using closed-path EC systems, but the extent of the LE underestimation is highly site-specific. We then propose a machine learning based method to correct for this underestimation, and compare it to two energy balance closure based LE correction approaches (Bowen ratio correction, BRC, and attributing all errors to LE). Our correction increases LE by 189% for closed-path sites at high RH (>90%), while BRC increases LE by around 30% for all RH conditions. Additionally, we assess the influence of these corrections on ET-based transpiration (T) estimates using two different ET partitioning methods. Results show opposite responses (increasing vs. slightly decreasing T-to-ET ratios, T/ET) between the two methods when comparing T based on corrected and uncorrected LE. Overall, our results demonstrate the existence of a high RH bias in water fluxes in the FLUXNET2015 dataset and suggest that this bias is a pronounced source of uncertainty in ET measurements to be considered when estimating ecosystem T/ET and WUE .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".