Comparison of evapotranspiration estimates using the water balance and the eddy covariance methods

Abstract The eddy covariance method estimates the energy flux of latent heat for evapotranspiration. However, imbalance between the land surface energy output and input is a well‐known fact. Energy balance closure is most commonly not achieved, and therefore the eddy covariance method potentially underestimates actual evapotranspiration. Notwithstanding, the method is one of the most established measurement techniques for estimating evapotranspiration. Here, evapotranspiration from eddy covariance (ETEC) is cross‐checked with evapotranspiration calculated as the residual of the water balance (ETwb). The water balance closure using ETEC is simultaneously validated. Over a 6‐yr period, all major terms of the water balance are measured including precipitation, recharge from percolation lysimeters, and soil moisture content from a cosmic‐ray neutron sensor, a capacitance sensor network, and time domain reflectometry (TDR), respectively. In addition, we estimate their respective uncertainties. The study demonstrates that both monthly and yearly ETEC and ETwb compare well and that the water balance is closed when ETEC is used. Concurrently, incoming available energy (net radiation minus ground heat flux) on average exceeds the turbulent energy fluxes (latent heat flux and sensible heat flux) by 31%, exposing the energy–surface imbalance. Consequently, the imbalance in the energy balance using the eddy covariance method must, to a lesser degree, be caused by errors in the latent heat estimates but can mainly be attributed to errors in the other energy flux components

Monitoring CO2 migration in a shallow sand aquifer using 3D crosshole electrical resistivity tomography

AbstractThree-dimensional (3D) crosshole electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) was used to monitor a pilot CO2 injection experiment at Vrøgum, western Denmark. The purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of the ERT method for detection of small electrical conductivity (EC) changes during the first 2 days of CO2 injection in a shallow siliciclastic aquifer and to study the early-time behavior of a controlled small gaseous CO2 release. 45kg of CO2 was injected over a 50-h period at 9.85m depth. ERT data were collected using horizontal bipole-bipole (HBB) and vertical bipole-bipole (VBB) arrays. The combined HBB and VBB data sets were inverted using a difference inversion algorithm for cancellation of coherent noises and enhanced resolution of small changes. ERT detected the small bulk EC changes (<10%) from conductive dissolved CO2 and resistive gaseous CO2. The primary factors that control the migration of a CO2 plume consist of buoyancy of gaseous CO2, local heterogeneity, groundwater flow and external pressure exerted by the injector. The CO2 plume at the Vrøgum site migrated mostly upward due to buoyancy and it also skewed toward northeastern region by overcoming local groundwater flow. The conductive eastern part is more porous and becomes the preferential pathway for the CO2 plume, which was trapped within the slightly more porous glacial sand layer between 5m and 10m depths. The gaseous and dissolved CO2 plumes are collocated and grow in tandem for the first 24h and their opposite effects resulted in a small bulk EC increase. After raising the injection rate from 10g/min to 20g/min at the 24-h mark, the CO2 plume grew quickly. The bulk EC changes from ERT agreed partially with water sample EC and GPR data. The apparent disagreement between high CO2 gas saturation and prevailing positive bulk EC changes may be caused by limited and variable ERT resolution, low ERT sensitivity to resistive anomalies and uncalibrated CO2 gas saturation. ERT data show a broader CO2 plume while water sample EC had higher fine-scale variability. Our ERT electrode configuration can be optimized for more efficient data acquisition and better spatial resolution

COSMOS-Europe : a European network of cosmic-ray neutron soil moisture sensors

We thank TERENO (Terrestrial Environmental Observatories), funded by the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft for the financing and maintenance of CRNS stations. We acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) of the research unit FOR 2694 Cosmic Sense (grant no. 357874777) and by the German Federal Ministry of Education of the Research BioökonomieREVIER, Digitales Geosystem – Rheinisches Revier project (grant no. 031B0918A). COSMOS-UK has been supported financially by the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (grant no. NE/R016429/1). The Olocau experimental watershed is partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through the research project TETISCHANGE (grant no. RTI2018-093717-BI00). The Calderona experimental site is partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through the research projects CEHYRFO-MED (grant no. CGL2017-86839- C3-2-R) and SILVADAPT.NET (grant no. RED2018-102719-T) and the LIFE project RESILIENT FORESTS (grant no. LIFE17 CCA/ES/000063). The University of Bristol’s Sheepdrove sites have been supported by the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council through a number of projects (grant nos. NE/M003086/1, NE/R004897/1, and NE/T005645/1) and by the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations (grant no. CRP D12014). Acknowledgements. We thank Peter Strauss and Gerhab Rab from the Institute for Land and Water Management Research, Federal Agency for Water Management Austria, Petzenkirchen, Austria. We thank Trenton Franz from the School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States. We also thank Carmen Zengerle, Mandy Kasner, Felix Pohl, and Solveig Landmark, UFZ Leipzig, for supporting field calibration, lab analysis, and data processing. We furthermore thank Daniel Dolfus, Marius Schmidt, Ansgar Weuthen, and Bernd Schilling, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany. The COSMOS-UK project team is thanked for making its data available to COSMOS-Europe. Luca Stevanato is thanked for the technical details about the Finapp sensor. The stations at Cunnersdorf, Lindenberg, and Harzgerode have been supported by Falk Böttcher, Frank Beyrich, and Petra Fude, German Weather Service (DWD). The Zerbst site has been supported by Getec Green Energy GmbH and Jörg Kachelmann (Meteologix AG). The CESBIO sites have been supported by the CNES TOSCA program. The ERA5-Land data are provided by ECMWF (Muñoz Sabater, 2021). The Jena dataset was retrieved at the site of The Jena Experiment, operated by DFG research unit FOR 1451.Peer reviewedPublisher PD