Measurement of dew, fog, and rime with a high‐precision gravitation lysimeter

Meißner, Ralph; Seeger, J.; Rupp, Holger; Seyfarth, Manfred; Borg, Heinz

doi:10.1002/jpln.200625002

Cited by 81 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, measurement methods (e.g., condensation plates, optical methods) to estimate the contribution of rime, dew, and fog to the total precipitation exhibit a high uncertainty (Jacobs et al, 2006). A short-term lysimeter case study by Meissner et al (2007) and a long-term investigation with a surface energy budget model calibrated with microlysimeters by Jacobs et al (2006) show that rime, fog, and dew contribute up to 5 % of the annual precipitation at a humid grassland site and are usually not captured by a standard precipitation gauge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the focal points in the study is the contribution of dew and rime to the total precipitation amount. The novelty compared to the work by Meissner et al (2007) is the length of the study and the fact that a series of six lysimeters is used. Our work allows corroborating results from Jacobs et al (2006), who used in their long-term study a different, more uncertain measurement method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Actual evapotranspiration and precipitation measured by lysimeters: a comparison with eddy covariance and tipping bucket

Gebler¹,

Franssen²,

Pütz³

et al. 2015

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This study compares actual evapotranspiration (ET a ) measurements by a set of six weighable lysimeters, ET a estimates obtained with the eddy covariance (EC) method, and evapotranspiration calculated with the full-form Penman-Monteith equation (ET PM ) for the Rollesbroich site in the Eifel (western Germany). The comparison of ET a measured by EC (including correction of the energy balance deficit) and by lysimeters is rarely reported in the literature and allows more insight into the performance of both methods. An evaluation of ET a for the two methods for the year 2012 shows a good agreement with a total difference of 3.8 % (19 mm) between the ET a estimates. The highest agreement and smallest relative differences (< 8 %) on a monthly basis between both methods are found in summer. ET a was close to ET PM , indicating that ET was energy limited and not limited by water availability. ET a differences between lysimeter and EC were mainly related to differences in grass height caused by harvest and the EC footprint. The lysimeter data were also used to estimate precipitation amounts in combination with a filter algorithm for the high-precision lysimeters recently introduced by Peters et al. (2014). The estimated precipitation amounts from the lysimeter data differ significantly from precipitation amounts recorded with a standard rain gauge at the Rollesbroich test site. For the complete year 2012 the lysimeter records show a 16 % higher precipitation amount than the tipping bucket. After a correction of the tipping bucket measurements by the method of Richter (1995) this amount was reduced to 3 %. With the help of an onsite camera the precipitation measurements of the lysimeters were analyzed in more detail. It was found that the lysimeters record more precipitation than the tipping bucket, in part related to the detection of rime and dew, which contribute 17 % to the yearly difference between both methods. In addition, fog and drizzle explain an additional 5.5 % of the total difference. Larger differences are also recorded for snow and sleet situations. During snowfall, the tipping bucket device underestimated precipitation severely, and these situations contributed also 7.9 % to the total difference. However, 36 % of the total yearly difference was associated with snow cover without apparent snowfall, and under these conditions snow bridges and snow drift seem to explain the strong overestimation of precipitation by the lysimeter. The remaining precipitation difference (about 33 %) could not be explained and did not show a clear relation to wind speed. The variation of the individual lysimeters devices compared to the lysimeter mean are small, showing variations up to 3 % for precipitation and 8 % for evapotranspiration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Actual evapotranspiration and precipitation measured by lysimeters: a comparison with eddy covariance and tipping bucket

Gebler¹,

Franssen²,

Pütz³

et al. 2015

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It would appear that during dew nights the amounts vary from very small quantities to about 0.51 mm estimated that the maximum possible amount is about 0.76 mm for a 10-hour night, but such amounts would occur only under exceptional circumstances. Total annual dew precipitation may lie between about 12.7 mm in cold climates and in nearly arid warm climates, to about 76.2 mm in semihumid warm climates (Hofmann, 1955 (Meissner at al., 2007). Furthermore, an adopted method of data interpretation is supposed to be necessary to separate dewfall from other measured water balance components (Nolz et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

Columella

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lysimeters are a very promising tool to quantify dewfall [13]. However, they are not widespread, because they are expensive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement of Four Equations for Computing Dewfall in Northern Germany

Xiao

Meißner

Borg

et al. 2017

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The energy balance (EB), turbulent vapour transport (TVT), Penman-Monteith (PM) and Bowen ratio energy balance (BREB) equation were used to estimate dewfall based on meteorological data. Initially there were big disagreements between the estimates from these four equations. However, after multiplying the heat and vapour conductance terms by 0.33 the agreement was much better. This implies that the disagreements derived from improper conductance values. Initially we did not consider the effect of atmospheric stability on the conductances. With stability correction the conductances were on average 0.5 times the values without stability correction. To arrive at the aforementioned 0.33, the conductances with stability correction still need to be lower by a factor of 0.66. The value of the von Karman constant and the relationships for the zero plane displacement and the roughness length we used in our conductance computations are widely used, but not the only possible ones. With different values and relationships also suggested in the literature one can reach this factor. However, it is also possible that our wind speed data contributed to the fact that the conductances we computed were too high. Their computation for a given canopy-atmosphere system requires wind speeds from a wind profile in equilibrium with the vegetation. This in turn requires an adequate fetch around the investigated surface. The highly varied vegetation in and around the site where the study was conducted makes adequate fetch rather doubtful. To obtain valid conductance values the atmospheric stability conditions must be considered, the appropriate values for the von Karman constant, the zero plane displacement and roughness length must be used, and there must be adequate fetch. The BREB equation does not contain a conductance term and therefore does not suffer from the problems just stated. The other three equations do. However, the BREB, like the EB and TVT equations, need the surface temperature which is not routinely measured. This then leaves the PM equation from which this temperature has been eliminated as the only option. Hence, in a future study dewfall estimates from the PM equation should be compared with direct measurements with a high precision weighing lysimeter.

show abstract

Measurement of dew, fog, and rime with a high‐precision gravitation lysimeter

Cited by 81 publications

References 22 publications

Actual evapotranspiration and precipitation measured by lysimeters: a comparison with eddy covariance and tipping bucket

Actual evapotranspiration and precipitation measured by lysimeters: a comparison with eddy covariance and tipping bucket

Untitled

Agreement of Four Equations for Computing Dewfall in Northern Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About