The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Uncertainty in eddy covariance measurements and its application to physiological models
Abstract
Flux data are noisy, and this uncertainty is largely due to random measurement error. Knowledge of uncertainty is essential for the statistical evaluation of modeled and measured fluxes, for comparison of parameters derived by fitting models to measured fluxes and in formal data-assimilation efforts. We used the difference between simultaneous measurements from two towers located less than 1 km apart to quantify the distributional characteristics of the measurement error in fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2) and sensible and latent heat (H and LE, respectively). Flux measurement error more closely follows a double exponential than a normal distribution. The CO2 flux uncertainty is negatively correlated with mean wind speed, whereas uncertainty in H and LE is positively correlated with net radiation flux. Measurements from a single tower made 24 h apart under similar environmental conditions can also be used to characterize flux uncertainty. Uncertainty calculated by this method is somewhat higher than that derived from the two-tower approach. We demonstrate the use of flux uncertainty in maximum likelihood parameter estimates for simple physiological models of daytime net carbon exchange. We show that inferred model parameters are highly correlated, and that hypothesis testing is therefore possible only when the joint distribution of the model parameters is taken into account.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. (1953) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.1699114 · Cited by 37,192
Cited by
The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data
Pastorello, G., Trotta, C., Canfora, E., Chu, H., Christianson, D., Cheah, Y.-W., Poindexter, C., Chen, J., Elbashandy, A., Humphrey, M., et al. (2020) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-020-0534-3 · Cited by 1,728
Baldocchi, D. (2008) · Australian Journal of Botany · doi:10.1071/bt07151 · Cited by 1,123
Cold season emissions dominate the arctic tundra methane budget
Zona, D., Gioli, B., Commane, R., Lindaas, J., Wofsy, S. C., Miller, C. E., Dinardo, S. J., Dengel, S., Sweeney, C., Karion, A., et al. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1516017113 · Cited by 422
Measurements necessary for assessing the net ecosystem carbon budget of croplands
Smith, P., Lanigan, G., Kutsch, W. L., Buchmann, N., Eugster, W., Aubinet, M., Ceschia, E., Béziat, P., Yeluripati, J. B., Osborne, B., et al. (2010) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.04.004 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- Hollinger, D. Y., & Richardson, A. D.
- Venue
- Tree Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-07-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 873-885
- ISSN
- 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
- 1758-4469
- OpenAlex
- W2097693265
- Cited by
- 569
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Uncertainty in eddy covariance measurements and its application to physiological models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/treephys/25.7.873
- The paper
- Hollinger, D. Y., & Richardson, A. D. (2005). Uncertainty in eddy covariance measurements and its application to physiological models. Tree Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.7.873
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.