Acta Geophysica

, Volume 63, Issue 6, pp 1465–1484 | Cite as

An Overview of the Regional Experiments for Land-atmosphere Exchanges 2012 (REFLEX 2012) Campaign

  • Wim J. Timmermans
  • Christiaan van der Tol
  • Joris Timmermans
  • Murat Ucer
  • Xuelong Chen
  • Luis Alonso
  • Jose Moreno
  • Arnaud Carrara
  • Ramon Lopez
  • Fernando de la Cruz Tercero
  • Horacio L. Corcoles
  • Eduardo de Miguel
  • Jose A. G. Sanchez
  • Irene Pérez
  • Belen Franch
  • Juan-Carlos J. Munoz
  • Drazen Skokovic
  • Jose Sobrino
  • Guillem Soria
  • Alasdair MacArthur
  • Loris Vescovo
  • Ils Reusen
  • Ana Andreu
  • Andreas Burkart
  • Chiara Cilia
  • Sergio Contreras
  • Chiara Corbari
  • Javier F. Calleja
  • Radoslaw Guzinski
  • Christine Hellmann
  • Ittai Herrmann
  • Gregoire Kerr
  • Adina-Laura Lazar
  • Benjamin Leutner
  • Gorka Mendiguren
  • Sylwia Nasilowska
  • Hector Nieto
  • Javier Pachego-Labrador
  • Survana Pulanekar
  • Rahul Raj
  • Anke Schikling
  • Bastian Siegmann
  • Stefanie von Bueren
  • Zhongbo (Bob) Su
Open Access
Article

Abstract

The REFLEX 2012 campaign was initiated as part of a training course on the organization of an airborne campaign to support advancement of the understanding of land-atmosphere interaction processes. This article describes the campaign, its objectives and observations, remote as well as in situ. The observations took place at the experimental Las Tiesas farm in an agricultural area in the south of Spain. During the period of ten days, measurements were made to capture the main processes controlling the local and regional land-atmosphere exchanges. Apart from multi-temporal, multi-directional and multi-spatial space-borne and airborne observations, measurements of the local meteorology, energy fluxes, soil temperature profiles, soil moisture profiles, surface temperature, canopy structure as well as leaf-level measurements were carried out. Additional thermo-dynamical monitoring took place at selected sites. After presenting the different types of measurements, some examples are given to illustrate the potential of the observations made.

Key words

land-atmosphere interaction multi-scale heterogeneity turbulence calibration and validation quantitative remote sensing 

References

  1. Foken, T. (2008), The energy balance closure problem: An overview, Ecol. Appl. 18, 6, 1351–1367, DOI: 10.1890/06-0922.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gamon, J.A., C. Coburn, L.B. Flanagan, K.F. Huemmrich, C. Kiddle, G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, D.R. Thayer, L. Vescovo, D. Gianelle, D.A. Sims, A.F. Rahman, and G.Z. Pastorello (2010), SpecNet revisited: bridging flux and remote sensing communities, Can. J. Remote Sens. 36, Suppl. 2, 376–390, DOI: 10.5589/m10-067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gillespie, A., S. Rokugawa, T. Matsunaga, J.S. Cothern, S. Hook, and A.B. Kahle (1998), A temperature and emissivity separation algorithm for Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) images, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote Sens. 36, 4, 1113–1126, DOI: 10.1109/36. 700995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kornelsen, K.C., and P. Coulibaly (2013), Advances in soil moisture retrieval from synthetic aperture radar and hydrological applications, J. Hydrol. 476, 460–489, DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.10.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. McCabe, M.F., and E.F. Wood (2006), Scale influences on the remote estimation of evapotranspiration using multiple satellite sensors, Remote Sens. Environ. 105, 4, 271–285, DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2006.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mishra, A.K., and V.P. Singh (2011), Drought modeling–A review, J. Hydrol. 403, 1-2, 157–175, DOI: 10.1016/j.hydrol.2011.03.049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Novick, K., S. Brantley, C.F. Miniat, J. Walker, and J.M. Vosee (2014), Inferring the contribution of advection to total ecosystem scalar fluxes over a tall forest in complex terrain, Agr. Forest Meteorol. 185, 1–13, DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.10.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Prueger, J.H., J.G. Alfieri, L.E. Hipps, W.P. Kustas, J.L. Chavez, S.R. Evett, M.C. Anderson, A.N. French, C.M.U. Neale, L.G. McKee, J.L. Hatfield, T.A. Howell, and N. Agam (2012), Patch scale turbulence over dryland and irrigated surfaces in a semi-arid landscape under advective conditions during BEAREX08, Adv. Water Resour. 50, 106–119, DOI: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rast, M., J. Johannessen, and W. Mauser (2014), Review of understanding of Earth’s hydrological cycle: Observations, theory and modelling, Surv. Geophys. 35, 3, 491–513, DOI: 10.1007/s10712-014-9279-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rodell, M., P.R. Houser, U. Jambor, J. Gottschalck, K. Mitchell, C.-J. Meng, K. Arsenault, B. Cosgrove, J. Radakovich, M. Bosilovich, J.K. Entin, J.P. Walker, D. Lohmann, and D. Toll (2004), The global land and data assimilation system, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 85, 3, 381–394, DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-85-3-381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Salama, M.S., R. van der Velde, H.J. van der Woerd, J.C. Kromkamp, C.J.M. Philippart, A.T. Joseph, P.E. O’Neill, R.H. Lang, T. Gish, P.J. Werdell, and Z. Su (2012), Technical note: Calibration and validation of geophysical observa-tion models, Biogeosciences 9, 2195–2201, DOI: 10.5194/bg-9-2195-2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Seneviratne, S.I., T. Corti, E.L. Davin, M. Hirschi, E.B. Jaeger, I. Lehner, B. Orlowsky, and A.J. Teuling (2010), Investigating soil moisture-climate interactions in a changing climate: A review, Earth Sci. Rev. 99, 3–4, 125–161, DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sobrino, J.A., J.C. Jiménez-Muñoz, P.J. Zarco-Tejada, G. Sepulcre-Cantó, E. de Miguel, G. Sòria, M. Romaguera, Y. Julien, J. Cuenca, V. Hidalgo, B. Franch, C. Mattar, L. Morales, A. Gillespie, D. Sabol, L. Balick, Z. Su, L. Jia, A. Gieske, W. Timmermans, A. Olioso, F. Nerry, L. Guanter, J. Moreno, and Q. Shen (2009), Thermal remote sensing from Airborne Hyperspectral Scanner data in the framework of the SPARC and SEN2FLEX projects: an overview, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 2031–2037, DOI: 10.5194/hess-13-2031-2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Su, Z., W.J. Timmermans, A. Gieske, L. Jia, J.A. Elbers, A. Olioso, J. Timmermans, R. van der Velde, X. Jin, H. van der Kwast, F. Nerry, D. Sabol, J.A. Sobrino, J. Moreno, and R. Bianchi (2008), Quantification of land-atmosphere exchanges of water, energy and carbon dioxide in space and time over the heterogeneous Barrax site, Int. J. Remote Sens. 29, 17–18, 5215–5235, DOI: 10.1080/01431160802326099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Timmermans, J., Z. Su, C. van der Tol, A. Verhoef, and W. Verhoef (2013), Quantifying the uncertainty in estimates of surface-atmosphere fluxes through joint evaluation of the SEBS and SCOPE models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 1561–1573, DOI: 10.5194/hess-17-1561-2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Timmermans, W.J., G. Bertoldi, J.D. Albertson, A. Olioso, Z. Su, and A.S.M. Gieske (2008), Accounting for atmospheric boundary layer variability on flux estimation from RS observations, Int. J. Remote Sens. 29, 17–18, 5275–5290, DOI: 10.1080/01431160802036383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Timmermans, W.J., Z. Su, and A. Olioso (2009), Footprint issues in scintillometry over heterogeneous landscapes, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 2179–2190, DOI: 10.5194/hess-13-2179-2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van der Tol, C. (2012), Validation of remote sensing of bare soil ground heat flux, Remote Sens. Environ. 121, 275–286, DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2012.02.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van der Tol, C., W. Timmermans, C. Corbari, A. Carrara, J. Timmermans, and Z. Su (2015), An analysis of turbulent heat fluxes and the energy balance during the REFLEX campaign, Acta Geophys. 63, 6, 1516–1539, DOI: 10.1515/acgeo-2015-0061 (this issue).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Dijk, A.I.J.M., and L.J. Renzullo (2011), Water resource monitoring systems and the role of satellite observations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 39–55, DOI: 10.5194/hess-15-39-2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang, K., and R.E. Dickinson (2012), A review of global terrestrial evapotranspiration: Observation, modeling, climatology, and climatic variability, Rev. Geophys. 50, 2, RG2005, DOI: 10.1029/2011RG000373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wu, H., and Z.-L. Li (2009), Scale issues in remote sensing: A review on analysis, processing and modeling, Sensors 9, 3, 1768–1793, DOI: 10.3390/s90301768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yebra, M., A. van Dijk, R. Leuning, A. Huete, and J.P. Guerschman (2013), Evaluation of optical remote sensing to estimate actual evapotranspiration and canopy conductance, Remote Sens. Environ. 129, 250–261, DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2012.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wim J. Timmermans
    • 1
  • Christiaan van der Tol
    • 1
  • Joris Timmermans
    • 1
  • Murat Ucer
    • 1
  • Xuelong Chen
    • 1
  • Luis Alonso
    • 2
  • Jose Moreno
    • 2
  • Arnaud Carrara
    • 3
  • Ramon Lopez
    • 3
  • Fernando de la Cruz Tercero
    • 4
  • Horacio L. Corcoles
    • 4
  • Eduardo de Miguel
    • 5
  • Jose A. G. Sanchez
    • 5
  • Irene Pérez
    • 5
  • Belen Franch
    • 6
  • Juan-Carlos J. Munoz
    • 6
  • Drazen Skokovic
    • 6
  • Jose Sobrino
    • 6
  • Guillem Soria
    • 6
  • Alasdair MacArthur
    • 7
  • Loris Vescovo
    • 8
  • Ils Reusen
    • 9
  • Ana Andreu
    • 10
  • Andreas Burkart
    • 11
  • Chiara Cilia
    • 12
  • Sergio Contreras
    • 13
  • Chiara Corbari
    • 14
  • Javier F. Calleja
    • 15
  • Radoslaw Guzinski
    • 16
  • Christine Hellmann
    • 17
  • Ittai Herrmann
    • 18
  • Gregoire Kerr
    • 19
  • Adina-Laura Lazar
    • 20
  • Benjamin Leutner
    • 21
  • Gorka Mendiguren
    • 13
  • Sylwia Nasilowska
    • 22
  • Hector Nieto
    • 16
  • Javier Pachego-Labrador
    • 13
  • Survana Pulanekar
    • 23
  • Rahul Raj
    • 1
  • Anke Schikling
    • 11
  • Bastian Siegmann
    • 24
  • Stefanie von Bueren
    • 25
  • Zhongbo (Bob) Su
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Department of Water ResourcesUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Laboratory for Earth Observation, Department of Earth PhysicsUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Parque TecnologicoFundacion CEAMValenciaSpain
  4. 4.Instituto Técnico Agronómico Provincial de Albacete (ITAP)AlbaceteSpain
  5. 5.Depto. De Observacion de la Tierra, Teledeteccion y AtmosferaInstituto Nacional de Tecnica Aerospacial (INTa)MadridSpain
  6. 6.Global Change Unit (GCU), Department of Earth PhysicsUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  7. 7.NERC Field Spectroscopy FacilityUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  8. 8.Fondazione Edmund Mach-Research and Innovation CentreTrentoItaly
  9. 9.Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO)MolBelgium
  10. 10.Instituto de Investigación y Formación Agraria y Pesquera (IFAPa)SevillaSpain
  11. 11.IBG-2: Plant Sciences, Forschungszentrum JülichInstitute of Bio- and GeosciencesJülichGermany
  12. 12.University Milano BicoccaMilanoItaly
  13. 13.Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)MadridSpain
  14. 14.Politecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  15. 15.University of OviedoOviedoSpain
  16. 16.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  17. 17.Experimental and Systems EcologyUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  18. 18.The Remote Sensing Laboratory, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert ResearchBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael
  19. 19.German Aerospace Center (DLR)WesslingGermany
  20. 20.Babes-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania
  21. 21.University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  22. 22.University of WarsawWarsawPoland
  23. 23.University of ReadingReadingUK
  24. 24.University of OsnabruckOsnabruckGermany
  25. 25.Massey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations