Evaluations of analytical footprint models using data from several stations located in different land use types are still scarce, but valuable for defining the spatial context of the measurements. Therefore, we evaluated two analytical footprint models by applying a ‘forward’ and an ‘inversion’ method. We used eddy covariance measurements from a flat agricultural landscape in western Germany in the summer of 2009, with seven eddy covariance systems over three different land use types with contrasting sensible heat fluxes. We found that the model of Hsieh et al. (2000. Adv. Water Resour. 23, 765–772) and of Kormann and Meixner (2001. Boundary Layer Meteorol. 99, 207–224) are both overestimating the distance of the peak contribution of the footprint. In our evaluation, the former model performs slightly better, independent of whether the crosswind dispersion was used from the latter model, or from the proposed model by Detto et al. (2006. Water Resour. Res. 42, 1–16).
- flux measurements
- sonic anemometer
van de Boer, A., Moene, A. F., Schüttemeyer, D., & Graf, A. (2013). Sensitivity and uncertainty of analytical footprint models according to a combined natural tracer and ensemble approach. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 169, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.016