Biogeosciences, 5, 451-462, 2008
© Author(s) 2008. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
26 Mar 2008
Quality control of CarboEurope flux data – Part 2: Inter-comparison of eddy-covariance software
M. Mauder1,*, T. Foken1, R. Clement2, J. A. Elbers3, W. Eugster4, T. Grünwald5, B. Heusinkveld6, and O. Kolle7 1University of Bayreuth, Department of Micrometeorology, Bayreuth, Germany
2University of Edinburgh, Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, Scotland
3Alterra, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands
4ETH Zurich, Institute of Plant Sciences, Zurich, Switzerland
5Technische Universität Dresden, Institute of Hydrology and Meteorology, Dresden, Germany
6Wageningen University, Department of Meteorology and Air Quality, Wageningen, The Netherlands
7Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany
*now at: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Abstract. As part of the quality assurance and quality control activities within the CarboEurope-IP network, a comparison of eddy-covariance software was conducted. For four five-day datasets, CO2 flux estimates were calculated by seven commonly used software packages to assess the uncertainty of CO2 flux estimates due to differences in post-processing. The datasets originated from different sites representing different commonly applied instrumentation and different canopy structures to cover a wide range of realistic conditions. Data preparation, coordinate rotation and the implementation of the correction for high frequency spectral losses were identified as crucial processing steps leading to significant discrepancies in the CO2 flux results. The overall comparison indicated a good although not yet perfect agreement among the different software within 5–10% difference for 30-min CO2 flux values. Conceptually different ideas about the selection and application of processing steps were a main reason for the differences in the CO2 flux estimates observed. A balance should be aspired between scientific freedom on the one hand, in order to advance methodical issues, and standardisation of procedures on the other hand, in order to obtain comparable fluxes for multi-site synthesis studies.

Citation: Mauder, M., Foken, T., Clement, R., Elbers, J. A., Eugster, W., Grünwald, T., Heusinkveld, B., and Kolle, O.: Quality control of CarboEurope flux data – Part 2: Inter-comparison of eddy-covariance software, Biogeosciences, 5, 451-462,, 2008.
Publications Copernicus