The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The propagation of errors in long‐term measurements of land‐atmosphere fluxes of carbon and water
Abstract
For surface fluxes of carbon dioxide, the net daily flux is the sum of daytime and nighttime fluxes of approximately the same magnitude and opposite direction. The net flux is therefore significantly smaller than the individual flux measurements and error assessment is critical in determining whether a surface is a net source or sink of carbon dioxide. For carbon dioxide flux measurements, it is an occasional misconception that the net flux is measured as the difference between the net upward and downward fluxes (i.e. a small difference between large terms). This is not the case. The net flux is the sum of individual (half‐hourly or hourly) flux measurements, each with an associated error term. The question of errors and uncertainties in long‐term flux measurements of carbon and water is addressed by first considering the potential for errors in flux measuring systems in general and thus errors which are relevant to a wide range of timescales of measurement. We also focus exclusively on flux measurements made by the micrometeorological method of eddy covariance. Errors can loosely be divided into random errors and systematic errors, although in reality any particular error may be a combination of both types. Systematic errors can be fully systematic errors (errors that apply on all of the daily cycle) or selectively systematic errors (errors that apply to only part of the daily cycle), which have very different effects. Random errors may also be full or selective, but these do not differ substantially in their properties. We describe an error analysis in which these three different types of error are applied to a long‐term dataset to discover how errors may propagate through long‐term data and which can be used to estimate the range of uncertainty in the reported sink strength of the particular ecosystem studied.
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
Cited by
Gap filling strategies for defensible annual sums of net ecosystem exchange
Falge, E., Baldocchi, D., Olson, R., Anthoni, P., Aubinet, M., Bernhofer, C., Burba, G., Ceulemans, R., Clement, R., Dolman, H., et al. (2001) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1923(00)00225-2 · Cited by 1,910
Self-citationRespiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests
Valentini, R., Matteucci, G., Dolman, A. J., Schulze, E.-D., Rebmann, C., Moors, E. J., Granier, A., Gross, P., Jensen, N. O., Pilegaard, K., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35009084 · Cited by 1,626
Self-citationBaldocchi, D. (2008) · Australian Journal of Botany · doi:10.1071/bt07151 · Cited by 1,123
Falge, E., Baldocchi, D., Tenhunen, J., Aubinet, M., Bakwin, P., Berbigier, P., Bernhofer, C., Burba, G., Clement, R., Davis, K. J., et al. (2002) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1923(02)00102-8 · Cited by 710
Self-citationMassman, W. J., & Lee, X. (2002) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1923(02)00105-3 · Cited by 687
Metadata
- Authors
- MONCRIEFF, J. B., MALHI, Y., & LEUNING, R.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 231-240
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2150897594
- Cited by
- 472
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.73
- 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: The propagation of errors in long‐term measurements of land‐atmosphere fluxes of carbon and water. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1996.tb00075.x
- The paper
- MONCRIEFF, J. B., MALHI, Y., & LEUNING, R. (1996). The propagation of errors in long‐term measurements of land‐atmosphere fluxes of carbon and water. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1996.tb00075.x
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.