2017
DOI: 10.5194/amt-2017-398
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The NASA Carbon Airborne Flux Experiment (CARAFE): Instrumentation and Methodology

Abstract: Abstract. The exchange of trace gases between the Earth's surface and its atmosphere drives atmospheric composition.Airborne eddy covariance can provide observational constraints on surface fluxes at regional scales, helping to bridge the gap between top-down and bottom-up flux estimates and offering novel insights into biophysical and biogeochemical processes. The NASA Carbon Airborne Flux Experiment (CARAFE) utilizes the NASA C-23 Sherpa aircraft with a suite of commercial and custom instrumentation to acqui… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although some effort is made to capture subgrid variability by combining tower clusters (e.g., IMN, BON) and similar ecosystems (e.g., Figure ) and by examining sensitivity to spatial resolution (e.g., Figure S1), we caution that spatial representativeness issues remain in the flux tower–model comparisons. Airborne eddy covariance surveys provide a viable option to increase footprint size toward regional scale (Wolfe et al., ); (iii) flux partitioning of eddy covariance NEE into GPP and TER also carries large uncertainties and can yield very different results depending on method (e.g., Figure S1). This uncertainty in itself may explain the short time lags between thaw and GPP observed at Bonanza Creek.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although some effort is made to capture subgrid variability by combining tower clusters (e.g., IMN, BON) and similar ecosystems (e.g., Figure ) and by examining sensitivity to spatial resolution (e.g., Figure S1), we caution that spatial representativeness issues remain in the flux tower–model comparisons. Airborne eddy covariance surveys provide a viable option to increase footprint size toward regional scale (Wolfe et al., ); (iii) flux partitioning of eddy covariance NEE into GPP and TER also carries large uncertainties and can yield very different results depending on method (e.g., Figure S1). This uncertainty in itself may explain the short time lags between thaw and GPP observed at Bonanza Creek.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The airborne vertical flux of HPMTF was computed using the EC technique using the CWT method (44)(45)(46). CWT methods for computing EC flux have emerged as a powerful technique in airborne flux studies, as it does not require homogeneity or stationarity over the averaging period and because it preserves time information, allowing for the computed flux to resolve changes over heterogeneous surfaces (44,45,47). All EC flux determinations for HPMTF were performed at 1-Hz time resolution.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the EC analysis, we used a custom-made MATLAB toolbox made available to us by Wolfe et al (2018;hereafter referred to as W2018) who also used it for airborne EC. Only minor modifications were necessary to adapt the scripts to our dataset.…”
Section: Eddy Covariance Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%