Representativeness of Eddy-Covariance flux footprints for areas surrounding AmeriFlux sites
Open accessAbstract
Large datasets of greenhouse gas and energy surface-atmosphere fluxes measured with the eddy-covariance technique (e.g., FLUXNET2015, AmeriFlux BASE) are widely used to benchmark models and remote-sensing products. This study addresses one of the major challenges facing model-data integration: To what spatial extent do flux measurements taken at individual eddy-covariance sites reflect model- or satellite-based grid cells? We evaluate flux footprints—the temporally dynamic source areas that contribute to measured fluxes—and the representativeness of these footprints for target areas (e.g., within 250–3000 m radii around flux towers) that are often used in flux-data synthesis and modeling studies. We examine the land-cover composition and vegetation characteristics, represented here by the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), in the flux footprints and target areas across 214 AmeriFlux sites, and evaluate potential biases as a consequence of the footprint-to-target-area mismatch. Monthly 80% footprint climatologies vary across sites and through time ranging four orders of magnitude from 103 to 107 m2 due to the measurement heights, underlying vegetation- and ground-surface characteristics, wind directions, and turbulent state of the atmosphere. Few eddy-covariance sites are located in a truly homogeneous landscape. Thus, the common model-data integration approaches that use a fixed-extent target area across sites introduce biases on the order of 4%–20% for EVI and 6%–20% for the dominant land cover percentage. These biases are site-specific functions of measurement heights, target area extents, and land-surface characteristics. We advocate that flux datasets need to be used with footprint awareness, especially in research and applications that benchmark against models and data products with explicit spatial information. We propose a simple representativeness index based on our evaluations that can be used as a guide to identify site-periods suitable for specific applications and to provide general guidance for data use.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Random forest and XGBoost baselines use spatial averages of HLS image tiles (1.5 × 1.5 km2) around the tower location, which reflect the current state-of-the-art eddy covariance upscaling approaches using coarse-resolution satellite data.
“Both random forest and XGBoost baselines use spatial averages of HLS image tiles (1.5 × 1.5 km 2 ) around the tower location, which reflect the current state-of-the-art eddy covariance upscaling approaches using coarse-resolution (e.g., 500 m to 5 km) satellite data [44], [49].”
From Prithvi-EO-2.0: A Versatile Multitemporal Foundation Model for Earth Observation Applications (2026) · cites this paper as [49]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [755]755. DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2012.06.007. Chen, B., et al., 2010. A data-model fusion approach for upscaling gross ecosystem productivity to the landscape scale based on remote sensing and flux footprint modelling. Biogeosciences 7 (9), 2943. Chen, L., Dirmeyer, P.A., Guo, Z., Schultz, N.M., 2018. Pairing FLUXNET sites to validate model representations of land-use/land-cover change. Hydrol Earth Syst Sc 22 (1), · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Prithvi-EO-2.0: A Versatile Multitemporal Foundation Model for Earth Observation Applications
Szwarcman, D., Roy, S., Fraccaro, P., Gislason, T. E., Blumenstiel, B., Ghosal, R., de Oliveira, P. H., de Sousa Almeida, J. L., Sedona, R., Kang, Y., et al. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2025.3642610 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
“0-600M with temporal and location embeddings is of 5.6 points.”
InfluentialKang, Y., Bassiouni, M., Gaber, M., Lu, X., & Keenan, T. F. (2025) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-17-3009-2025 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chu, H., Luo, X., Ouyang, Z., Chan, W. S., Dengel, S., Biraud, S. C., Torn, M. S., Metzger, S., Kumar, J., Arain, M. A., Arkebauer, T. J., Baldocchi, D., Bernacchi, C., Billesbach, D., Black, T. A., Blanken, P. D., Bohrer, G., Bracho, R., Brown, S., Brunsell, N. A., Chen, J., Chen, X., Clark, K., Desai, A. R., Duman, T., Durden, D., Fares, S., Forbrich, I., Gamon, J. A., Gough, C. M., Griffis, T., Helbig, M., Hollinger, D., Humphreys, E., Ikawa, H., Iwata, H., Ju, Y., Knowles, J. F., Knox, S. H., Kobayashi, H., Kolb, T., Law, B., Lee, X., Litvak, M., Liu, H., Munger, J. W., Noormets, A., Novick, K., Oberbauer, S. F., Oechel, W., Oikawa, P., Papuga, S. A., Pendall, E., Prajapati, P., Prueger, J., Quinton, W. L., Richardson, A. D., Russell, E. S., Scott, R. L., Starr, G., Staebler, R., Stoy, P. C., Stuart-Haëntjens, E., Sonnentag, O., Sullivan, R. C., Suyker, A., Ueyama, M., Vargas, R., Wood, J. D., & Zona, D.
- Affiliations
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Battelle (US)
- McMaster University (CA)
- University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Agricultural Research Service (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- The Ohio State University (US)
- University of Florida (US)
- University of Guelph (CA)
- University of Kansas (US)
- Michigan State University (US)
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US)
- California State University, East Bay (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- University of New Mexico (US)
- Marine Biological Laboratory (US)
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Dalhousie University (CA)
- US Forest Service (US)
- National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (JP)
- University of Alabama (US)
- Argonne National Laboratory (US)
- Wayne State University (US)
- Oregon State University (US)
- Washington State University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- San Diego State University (US)
- Wilfrid Laurier University (CA)
- Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JP)
- University of Missouri (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chu, Housen
- ORCID
- Chu, Housen
- Luo, Xiangzhong
- Ouyang, Zutao
- Chan, W. Stephen
- Dengel, Sigrid
- Torn, Margaret S.
- Metzger, Stefan
- Kumar, Jitendra
- Arain, M. Altaf
- Baldocchi, Dennis
- Bernacchi, Carl
- Billesbach, Dave
- Black, T. Andrew
- Blanken, Peter D.
- Bohrer, Gil
- Bracho, Rosvel
- Brunsell, Nathaniel A.
- Chen, Jiquan
- Chen, Xingyuan
- Clark, Kenneth
- Desai, Ankur R.
- Duman, Tomer
- Durden, David
- Fares, Silvano
- Forbrich, Inke
- Gamon, John A.
- Gough, Christopher M.
- Griffis, Timothy
- Helbig, Manuel
- Hollinger, David
- Humphreys, Elyn
- Ikawa, Hiroki
- Iwata, Hiroki
- Knowles, John F.
- Knox, Sara H.
- Kobayashi, Hideki
- Kolb, Thomas
- Law, Beverly
- Lee, Xuhui
- Litvak, Marcy
- Liu, Heping
- Munger, J. William
- Oberbauer, Steven F.
- Oechel, Walter
- Papuga, Shirley A.
- Pendall, Elise
- Prajapati, Prajaya
- Prueger, John
- Quinton, William L
- Richardson, Andrew D.
- Russell, Eric S.
- Scott, Russell L.
- Starr, Gregory
- Staebler, Ralf
- Stoy, Paul C.
- Stuart-Haëntjens, Ellen
- Sonnentag, Oliver
- Sullivan, Ryan C.
- Ueyama, Masahito
- Vargas, Rodrigo
- Wood, Jeffrey D.
- Zona, Donatella
- Venue
- Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-05
- Volume
- 301-302
- Pages
- 108350
- ISSN
- 0168-1923 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3129218789
- Cited by
- 497
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 133 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 44
- FWCI
- 35.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
- National University of Singapore (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Open Access Server of the Woods Hole Scientific Community (Woods Hole Scientific Community) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Science (DE-AC02-05CH11231)
- U.S. Department of Energy
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
- Keywords
- AmeriFlux, FLUXNET2015, EVI, land cover composition, model-data integration, surface-atmosphere exchange, measurement height, spatial heterogeneity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review