Understanding the critical soil moisture (SM) threshold (θ crit ) of plant water stress and land surface energy partitioning is a basis to evaluate drought impacts and improve models for predicting future ecosystem condition and climate. Quantifying the θ crit across biomes and climates is challenging because observations of surface energy fluxes and SM remain sparse. Here, we used the latest database of eddy covariance

No abstract

Abstract. In the past few years, the interest in growing crops and trees for bioenergy production has increased. One agricultural practice is the mixed cultivation of fast-growing trees and annual crops or perennial grasslands on the same piece of land, which is referred to as one type of agroforestry (AF). The inclusion of tree strips into the agricultural landscape has been shown – on the one hand – to lead to reduced wind speeds and higher carbon sequestration above ground and in the soil. On the other hand, concerns have been raised about increased water losses to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration (ET). Therefore, we hypothesise that short rotation coppice agroforestry systems have higher water losses to the atmosphere via ET compared to monoculture (MC) agriculture without trees. In order to test the hypothesis, the main objective was to measure the actual evapotranspiration of five AF systems in Germany and compare those to five monoculture systems in the close vicinity of the AF systems. We measured actual ET at five AF sites in direct comparison to five monoculture sites in northern Germany in 2016 and 2017. We used an eddy covariance energy balance (ECEB) set-up and a low-cost eddy covariance (EC-LC) set-up to measure actual ET over each AF and each MC system. We conducted direct eddy covariance (EC) measurement campaigns with approximately 4 weeks' duration for method validation. Results from the short-term measurement campaigns showed a high agreement between ETEC-LC and ETEC, indicated by slopes of a linear regression analysis between 0.86 and 1.3 (R2 between 0.7 and 0.94) across sites. Root mean square errors of LEEC-LC vs. LEEC (where LE is the latent heat flux) were half as small as LEECEB vs. LEEC, indicating a superior agreement of the EC-LC set-up with the EC set-up compared to the ECEB set-up. With respect to the annual sums of ET over AF and MC, we observed small differences between the two land uses. We interpret this as being an effect of compensating the small-scale differences in ET next to and in between the tree strips for ET measurements on the system scale. Most likely, the differences in ET rates next to and in between the tree strips are of the same order of magnitude, but of the opposite sign, and compensate each other throughout the year. Differences between annual sums of ET from the two methods were of the same order of magnitude as differences between the two land uses. Compared to the effect of land use and different methods on ET, we found larger mean evapotranspiration indices (∑ET/∑P) across sites for a drier than normal year (2016) compared to a wet year (2017). This indicates that we were able to detect differences in ET due to different ambient conditions with the applied methods, rather than the potentially small effect of AF on ET. We conclude that agroforestry has not resulted in an increased water loss to the atmosphere, indicating that agroforestry in Germany can be a land-use alternative to monoculture agriculture without trees.

Abstract. Heterogeneous land surfaces require multiple measurement units for spatially adequate sampling and representative fluxes. The complexity and cost of traditional eddy covariance (EC) set-ups typically limits the feasible number of sampling units. Therefore, new low-cost eddy covariance systems provide ideal opportunities for spatially replicated sampling. The aim of this study was to test the performance of a compact, low-cost pressure, temperature and relative humidity sensor for the application of evapotranspiration measurements by eddy covariance over agroforestry and conventional agriculture in Germany. We performed continuous low-cost eddy covariance measurements over agroforestry and conventional agriculture for reference at five sites across northern Germany over a period of 2 years from 2016 to 2017. We conducted side-by-side measurements using a roving enclosed-path eddy covariance set-up to assess the performance of the low-cost eddy covariance set-up. Evapotranspiration measured with low-cost eddy covariance compared well with fluxes from conventional eddy covariance. The slopes of linear regressions for evapotranspiration comparing low-cost and conventional eddy covariance set-ups ranged from 0.86 to 1.08 for 5 out of 10 sites, indicating a 14 % flux underestimation and a 8 % flux overestimation relative to the conventional eddy covariance set-up, respectively. Corresponding coefficients of determination, R2, ranged from 0.71 to 0.94 across sites. The root-mean-square error for differences between latent heat fluxes obtained by both set-ups were small compared to the overall flux magnitude, with a mean and standard deviation of 34.23±3.2 W m−2, respectively, across sites. The spectral response characteristics of the low-cost eddy covariance set-up were inferior to the eddy covariance set-up in the inertial sub-range of the turbulent spectrum. The water vapour flux co-spectrum of the low-cost eddy covariance set-up underestimated the theoretical slope of -4/3, stronger than the conventional eddy covariance set-up. This underestimation was mainly caused by the limited response time of the low-cost thermohygrometer being longer than 1 s. We conclude that low-cost eddy covariance sensors are an alternative to conventional eddy covariance sensors when, first, replicates are required and, second, the spatial variability of fluxes of the ecosystems of interest is larger than above-reported set-up-specific differences in fluxes.

Intensively managed open croplands are highly productive but often have deleterious environmental impacts. Temperate agroforestry potentially improves ecosystem functions, although comprehensive analysis is lacking. Here, we measured primary data on 47 indicators of seven ecosystem functions in croplands and 16 indicators of four ecosystem functions in grasslands to assess how alley-cropping agroforestry performs compared to open cropland and grassland. Carbon sequestration, habitat for soil biological activity, and wind erosion resistance improved for cropland agroforestry (P ≤ 0.03) whereas only carbon sequestration improved for grassland agroforestry (P < 0.01). In cropland agroforestry, soil nutrient cycling, soil greenhouse gas abatement, and water regulation did not improve, due to customary high fertilization rates. Alley-cropping agroforestry increased multifunctionality, compared to open croplands. To ameliorate the environmental benefits of agroforestry, more efficient use of nutrients is required. Financial incentives should focus on conversion of open croplands to alley-cropping agroforestry and incorporate fertilizer management.