Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:53:05.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Methods of Observation and Instrumentation

from Part I - Controls of Microclimate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2016

Roger G. Barry
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
Peter D. Blanken
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The task of observing the microclimate of a region or object in a quantitative manner is important to the discipline for many reasons. As a consequence, many of the innovations and developments in meteorological instrumentation stem from the microclimate community. Initially (and currently), the agricultural community had a great interest in measuring the key variables that were (are) important for crop growth and yields: solar radiation (photosynthetic active radiation, or PAR), air and soil temperature, precipitation, and soil properties (texture for proper drainage and water retention, water content). As such, instruments and techniques for measuring the spatial and temporal variability of these and other crop variables were developed within agriculture and soil physics departments at many universities. Given the need to understand the spatial aspects of microclimate, such as the spatial interpolation between measurement locations, geography departments also often fostered and refined microclimate observations and instrumentation.

This chapter provides a review of some of the main techniques, instrumentation, and theory behind micrometeorological observations. The fundamental principles governing these observations are first discussed. This is followed by discussions of the measurement of temperature, soil properties (temperature, moisture, and heat flux), radiation, wind, precipitation, total and partial atmospheric pressures, and turbulent fluxes.

Fundamentals

Any measurement strives to quantify reality. The measurement's accuracy refers to the difference between reality and what the instrument actually detects. For example, if the actual air temperature is 25 °C, a thermometer reading 24 °C is more accurate than one reading 28 °C. In addition to accuracy, a well-designed instrument should have a high precision, meaning that the instrument should read the same value if the conditions are not changing. For example, an object is at a steady temperature of 10 °C. A thermometer that reads 10 °C for five consecutive measurements would be said to have a high precision and high accuracy. If the thermometer “drifted” so that the five consecutive readings were, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 °C, respectively, the thermometer would have a low precision and low accuracy. Note that an instrument could be precise, but not accurate (see Figure 3.1). In the previous example, consecutive readings of 4 °C while the actual temperature is 10 °C would indicate a high-precision, but low accuracy, thermometer. Ideally an instrument should be accurate and precise.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aubinet, M., Vesala, T., and Papale, D. (eds.) 2012. Eddy covariance: A practical guide to measurement and data analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.
Blanken, P. D., Rouse, W. R., and Schertzer, W. M. 2003. Enhancement of evaporation from a large northern lake by the entrainment of warm, dry air. J. Hydromet. 4(4), 680–93.Google Scholar
Burba, G. 2013. Eddy covariance method. Lincoln, NE: LI-COR.
Farouki, O. T. 1981. Thermal properties of soils. Hanover, NH: CRREL Monograph 81-1.Google Scholar
Goodison, B. E., Louie, P. Y. T., and Yang, D. 1998. WMO solid precipitation measurement intercomparison. Final report no. 67. WMO/TD – No. 872.
Leclerc, M. Y. and Foken, T. 2014. Footprints in micrometeorology and ecology.Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Merz, S. et al. 2014. Moisture profiles of the upper soil layer during evaporation monitored by NMR. Water Resour. Res. doi: 10.1002/2013WR014809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudelsee, M. 2014. Climate time series analysis. Netherlands: Springer.
Navarra, A., and Simoncini, V. 2010. A guide to empirical orthogonal functions for climate data analysis.Netherlands: Springer.
Obukhov, A. M. 1971. Turbulence in an atmosphere with a non-uniform temperature, Boundary-Layer Met. 2, 7–29.Google Scholar
Perez, P. J., Castellvi, F., Ibañez, M., and Rosell, J. I. 1999. Assessment of reliability of Bowen ratio method for partitioning fluxes, Agric. Forest Met. 97, 141–50.Google Scholar
Plummer, N., Allsopp, T., and Lopez, J. A. 2003. Guidelines on climate observation networks and systems. World Meteorological Organization, WMO/TD no. 1185.
Rasmussen, R et al. 2012. How well are we measuring snow?Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 93(6), 811–29. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00052.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robock, A. et al., 2000. The global soil moisture data bank. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 81(6), 1281–99.Google Scholar
Rötzer, K., Montzka, C. and Vereecken, H. 2015. Spatio-temporal variability of global soil moisture products. J. Hydrol. 522, 187–202.Google Scholar
Savage, M. J., Everson, C. S., and Metelerkamp, B. R. 2009. Bowen ratio evaporation measurement in a remote montane grassland: Data integrity and fluxes. J. Hydrol. 376, 249–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayde, C. et al. 2014. Mapping variability of soil water content and flux across 1–1000 m scales using the Actively Heated Fiber Optic method, Water Resour. Res. 50. doi:10.1002/2013WR014983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. A., Seo, D. J., Baeck, M. L., and Hudlow, M. D. 2010. An intercomparison study of NEXRAD precipitation estimates. Water Resour. Res. 32(7), 2035–45.Google Scholar
Storch, H., von, and Navarra, A (eds.) 1999. Analysis of Climate Variability, 2nd Ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Storch, H., von, and Zwiers, F. W. 2002. Statistical analysis in climate research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vereecken, H. et al. 2008. On the value of soil moisture measurements in vadose zone hydrology: a review. Water Resour. Res. 44, W00D06.Google Scholar
Zreda, M. et al. 2012. COSMOS: the cosmic-ray Soil Moisture Observing System. Hydrol. Earth System Sci. 16(11).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×