Modular Design of Field Lysimeters for Specific Application Needs

Unold, Georg von; Fank, Johann

doi:10.1007/s11267-007-9172-4

Cited by 64 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The lysimeter site was kept under video surveillance by a camera taking a photo of the lysimeter status every hour. Further technical specifications can be found in Unold and Fank (2008). Latent and sensible heat fluxes were measured by an eddy covariance station at a distance of approximately 30 m from the lysimeters.…”

Section: Study Site and Measurement Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As an alternative to classical rain gauges and the eddy covariance method, state-of-the-art, high-precision weighing lysimeters are able to capture the fluxes at the interface of soil, vegetation, and atmosphere (Unold and Fank, 2008). A high weighing accuracy and a controlled lower boundary condition permit high-temporal-resolution precipitation measurements at ground level, including dew, fog, rime, and snow.…”

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: Study Site and Measurement Setupmentioning

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

“…1 (Aboukhaled et al, 1982). State-of-the-art lysimeters are equipped with sensor arrays that measure soil parameters inside and outside of the lysimeter container to monitor and control boundary conditions similar to that of the undisturbed soil environment (von Unold and Fank, 2008). Hence, modern lysimeters are powerful tools to quantify water balance components with a high precision (<0.1 mm) and a high temporal resolution (<10 min) (Hannes et al, 2015).…”

Section: Quantifying Soil Water Balance Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review on the quantification of soil water balance components as a basis for agricultural water management with a focus on weighing lysimeters and soil water sensors / Ein Überblick über die Ermittlung von Wasserhaushaltsgrößen als Basis für die landeskulturelle Wasserwirtschaft mit Fokus auf Lysimeter und Bodenwassersensoren

Nolz

2016

Die Bodenkultur: Journal of Land Management, Food and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryKnowing the components of a soil water balance-for example, evapotranspiration, soil water content, and precipitation-is the basis for agricultural water management. Weighing lysimeters and soil water sensors are commonly used to quantify these components. Data can be used to validate common models to estimate evapotranspiration based on meteorological data, for instance. As every measurement device has its own characteristics, it is helpful to assess and improve the performance of a system to obtain best possible data. Recent developments in the processing of lysimeter data allow determining both evapotranspiration and precipitation directly from lysimeter data. Resulting datasets are characterized by a proper accuracy, completeness, and a high temporal resolution. Soil water sensors usually measure a physical property that is related to soil water content or matric potential via a specific calibration function. Hence, measurement accuracy depends not only on this calibration but also on basic physical principles and material properties. Knowing the performance of a device is, therefore, essential for the selection of an adequate sensor arrangement and truthful data interpretation. Advanced soil water monitoring sites combine different sensor types that are integrated into a wireless network to enable real-time data availability and provide a basis for large-scale monitoring. Keywords

show abstract

“…(e.g. ; Chang, 1968;Ritchie & Burnett, 1968;Takhar & Rudge, 1970;Parton et al, 1981;Steiner et al, 1991;Allen et al, 1998;Loos et al, 2007;von Unold &Fank, 2008) Weighing lysimeters make direct measurements of water loss from a growing crop and the soil surface around a crop and thus, provide basic data to validate other water vapor flux prediction methods (e.g. ; Dugas et al, 1985;Prueger et al, 1997;López-Urrea et al, 2006;Vaughan et al, 2007).…”

Section: Weighing Lysimetersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Vapor Flux in Agroecosystems Methods and Models Review

Ramírez-Builes¹,

Harmsen²

2011

Evapotranspiration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modular Design of Field Lysimeters for Specific Application Needs

Cited by 64 publications

References 3 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

Water Vapor Flux in Agroecosystems Methods and Models Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About