Modeling of Energy and Matter Exchange

  • Eva Falge
  • Katharina Köck
  • Kathrin Gatzsche
  • Linda Voß
  • Andreas Schäfer
  • Martina Berger
  • Ralph Dlugi
  • Armin Raabe
  • Rex David Pyles
  • Kyaw Tha Paw U
  • Thomas Foken
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 229)


With the data sets of the Waldstein-Weidenbrunnen site, different types of soil-vegetation-atmosphere transfer models were tested with different complexity and closure approaches. These are the STANDFLUX and SVAT-CN models in 1D and 3D resolution with a classical first-order closure according to the K-approach, the FLAME with a 1,5-order transilient approach, and the ACASA model with a third-order closure. The presented comparison of model outputs and measured data was very satisfactory. Surprising was the good agreement, as well, of the first-order closure models inside the canopy, also in comparison to sap flow data. Only at nighttime, with a low coupling between the canopy and the atmosphere, did the higher-order closure model ACASA have advantages in comparison to the other models. This study has shown the nearly unrestricted applicability of the models like ACASA (1D) and SVAT-CN (3D) for tall vegetation and even low vegetation and tile approaches. And furthermore, the data sets of the Waldstein-Weidenbrunnen site are qualified for validation of different types of model.


Atmospheric Boundary Layer Latent Heat Flux Energy Balance Closure Tall Vegetation Atmospheric Boundary Layer Height 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was funded within the DFG projects FO 226/16-1 and ME 2100/4-1 as well the DFG PAK 446 project, mainly the subprojects ME 2100/5-1 and FO226/21-1, the fourth projects of BITÖK, PT BEO 51-0339476 D), and BaCaTeC (Bayerisch-Kalifornische Hochschulzentrum) “Modellierung des Energieaustausches zwischen der Atmosphäre und Waldökosystemen.” Partial support came from a grant from the US National Science Foundation EF1137306 to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, sub-award 5710003122 to the University of California Davis.


  1. Baldocchi DD, Wilson KB, Gu L (2002) How the environment, canopy structure and canopy physiological functioning influence carbon, water and energy fluxes of a temperate broad-leaved deciduous forest-an assessment with the biophysical model CANOAK. Tree Phys 22:1065–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger M, Dlugi R, Foken T (2004) Modelling the vegetation atmospheric exchange with transilient model. In: Matzner E (ed) Biogeochemistry of forested catchments in a changing environment, a German case study, Ecological studies, vol 172. Springer, Berlin, pp 177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charuchittipan D, Babel W, Mauder M, Leps J-P, Foken T (2014) Extension of the averaging time of the eddy-covariance measurement and its effect on the energy balance closure. Boundary Layer Meteorol 152:303–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen Y, Ryder J, Bastrikov V, McGrath MJ, Naudts K, Otto J, Ottlé C, Peylin P, Polcher J, Valade A, Black A, Elbers JA, Moors E, Foken T, van Gorsel E, Haverd V, Heinesch B, Tiedemann F, Knohl A, Launiainen S, Loustau D, Ogée J, Vessala T, Luyssaert S (2016) Evaluating the performance of land surface model ORCHIDEE-CAN v1.0 on water and energy flux estimation with a single- and multi-layer energy budget scheme. Geosci Model Dev 9:2951–2972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciais P, Reichstein M, Viovy M, Granier A, Ogée J, Allard V, Aubinet M, Buchmann N, Bernhofer C, Carrara A, Chevallier F, De Noblet N, Friend AD, Friedlinstein P, Grünwald T, Heinesch B, Keronen P, Knohl A, Krinner G, Loustau D, Manca G, Matteucci G, Migglietta F, Ourcival JM, Papale D, Pilegaard K, Rambal S, Seufert G, Soussana JF, Sanz MJ, Schulze ED, Vesala T, Valentini R (2005) Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437:529–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Collatz GJ, Ball JT, Grivet C, Berry JA (1991) Regulation of stomatal conductance and transpiration, a physiological model of canopy processes. Agric For Meteorol 54:107–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Constantin J, Inclan MG, Raschendorfer M (1998) The energy budget of a spruce forest: field measurements and comparison with the forest–land–atmosphere model (FLAME). J Hydrol 212–213:22–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deardorff JW (1966) The counter-gradient heat flux in the lower atmosphere and in the laboratory. J Atmos Sci 23:503–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denmead DT, Bradley EF (1985) Flux-gradient relationships in a forest canopy. In: Hutchison BA, Hicks BB (eds) The forest-atmosphere interaction. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 421–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denmead DT, Bradley EF (1987) On scalar transport in plant canopies. Irrig Sci 8:131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ducoudré NI, Laval K, Perrier A (1993) SECHIBA, a new set of parameterizations of the hydrologic exchanges at the land-atmosphere interface within the LMD atmospheric general circulation model. J Clim 6:248–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eder F, Serafimovich A, Foken T (2013) Coherent structures at a forest edge: properties, coupling and impact of secondary circulations. Boundary Layer Meteorol 148:285–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falge E, Graber W, Siegwolf R, Tenhunen JD (1996) A model of the gas exchange response of Picea abies to habitat conditions. Trees 10:277–287Google Scholar
  14. Falge EM, Ryel RJ, Alsheimer M, Tenhunen JD (1997) Effects on stand structure and physiology on forest gas exchange: a simulation study for Norway spruce. Trees 11:436–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falge E, Tenhunen JD, Ryel R, Alsheimer M, Köstner B (2000) Modelling age- and density-related gas exchange of Picea abies canopies of the Fichtelgebirge, Germany. Ann Sci For 57:229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Falge E, Tenhunen J, Aubinet M, Bernhofer C, Clement R, Granier A, Kowalski A, Moors E, Pilegaard K, Rannik Ü, Rebmann C (2003) A model-based study of carbon fluxes at ten European forest sites. In: Valentini R (ed) Fluxes of carbon, water and energy of European forests, Ecological studies, vol 163. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Falge E, Reth S, Brüggemann N, Butterbach-Bahl K, Goldberg V, Oltchev A, Schaaf S, Spindler G, Stiller B, Queck R, Köstner B, Bernhofer C (2005) Comparison of surface energy exchange models with eddy flux data in forest and grassland ecosystems of Germany. Ecol Mod 188:174–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Falk M, Pyles RD, Ustin SL, Paw U KT, Xu L, Whiting ML, Sanden BL, Brown PH (2014) Evaluated crop evapotranspiration over a region of irrigated orchards with the improved ACASA-WRF model. J Hydrometeorol 15:744–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farquhar GD, von Caemmerer S (1982) Modeling photosynthetic response to environmental conditions. In: Lange OL et al (eds) Encyclopia of plant physiology II, vol 12b. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Farquhar GD, von Caemmerer S, Berry JA (1980) A biochemical of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149:78–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Finnigan J (2000) Turbulence in plant canopies. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 32:519–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foken T (2008) The energy balance closure problem—An overview. Ecolog Appl 18:1351–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foken T, Mangold A, Rebmann C, Wichura B (2000) Characterization of a complex measuring site for flux measurements. 14th Symposium on Boundary Layer and Turbulence, Aspen, CO, 07–11 Aug 2000. Am Meteorol Soc, Boston, pp 388–389Google Scholar
  24. Foken T, Meixner FX, Falge E, Zetzsch C, Serafimovich A, Bargsten A, Behrendt T, Biermann T, Breuninger C, Dix S, Gerken T, Hunner M, Lehmann-Pape L, Hens K, Jocher G, Kesselmeier J, Lüers J, Mayer JC, Moravek A, Plake D, Riederer M, Rütz F, Scheibe M, Siebicke L, Sörgel M, Staudt K, Trebs I, Tsokankunku A, Welling M, Wolff V, Zhu Z (2012) Coupling processes and exchange of energy and reactive and non-reactive trace gases at a forest site—results of the EGER experiment. Atmos Chem Phys 12:1923–1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frühauf C, Zimmermann L, Bernhofer C (1999) Comparison of forest evapotranspiration from ECEB-measurements over a spruce stand with the water budget of a catchment. Phys Chem Earth B 24:805–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garratt JR (1978) Flux profile relations above tall vegetation. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 104:199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gough C, Vogel C, Kazanski C, Nagel L, Flower C, Curtis P (2007) Coarse woody debris and the carbon balance of a north temperate forest. For Ecol Manage 244:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harman IN, Finnigan JJ (2007) A simple unified theory for flow in the canopy and roughness sublayer. Boundary Layer Meteorol 123:339–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harman IN, Finnigan JJ (2008) Scalar concentration profiles in the canopy and roughness sublayer. Boundary Layer Meteorol 129:323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Inclán MG, Forkel R, Dlugi R, Stull RB (1996) Application of transilient turbulent theory to study interactions between the atmospheric boundary layer and forest canopies. Boundary Layer Meteorol 79:315–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Inclán MG, Dlugi R, Richter SH, Foken T (1998) Vergleich zwischen LITFASS- und FLAME-(Forest-Land-Atmosphere-Model) Ergebnissen. Ann Meteorol 37:267–268Google Scholar
  32. Inclán G, Schween J, Dlugi R (1999) Estimation of volatile organic compound fluxes using the forest-land-atmosphere model (FLAME). J Appl Meteorol 38:913–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Juang JY, Katul G, Siqueira MB, Stoy PC, McCarthy HR (2008) Investigating a hierarchy of Eulerian closure models for scalar transfer inside forested canopies. Boundary Layer Meteorol 128:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Katul GG, Albertson JD (1998) An investigation of higher-order closure models for a forested canopy. Boundary Layer Meteorol 89:47–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klaassen W, van Breugel PB, Moors EJ, Nieveen JP (2002) Increased heat fluxes near a forest edge. Theor Appl Climat 72:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krinner G, Viovy N, de Noblet-Ducoudré N, Ogée J, Polcher J, Friedlingstein P, Ciais P, Sitch S, Prentice IC (2005) A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system. Global Biogeochem Cycles 19:GB1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leuning RFM (1990) Modeling stomatal behavior and photosynthesis of Eucalyptus grandis. Austr J Plant Phys 17:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyers TP (1985) A simulation of the canopy microenvironment using higher order closure principles. PhD Thesis, Purdue University, Purdue, 153 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyers TP, Paw U KT (1986) Testing a higher-order closure model for modelling airflow within and above plant canopies. Boundary Layer Meteorol 37:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyers TP, Paw U KT (1987) Modelling the plant canopy microenvironment with higher-order closure principles. Agric For Meteorol 41:143–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Norman JM (1979) Modelling the complete crop canopy. In: Barfield B, Gerber J (eds) Modification of areal environment of crops, monograph 2. American Society of Agricultural Engineering, St. Joseph, pp 249–277Google Scholar
  42. Paw U KT, Gao W (1988) Application of solutions to non-linear energy budget equations. Agric For Meteorol 43:121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pinard JD, Wilson JD (2001) First- and second-order closure models for wind in a plant canopy. J Appl Meteorol 40:1762–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pyles RD (2000) The development and testing of the UCD advanced canopy-atmosphere-soil algorithm (ACASA) for use in climate prediction and field studies. PhD, University of California, Davis, 194 ppGoogle Scholar
  45. Pyles RD, Weare BC, Paw U KT (2000) The UCD Advanced Canopy-Atmosphere-Soil Algorithm: comparisons with observations from different climate and vegetation regimes. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 126:2951–2980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pyles RD, Paw U KT, Falk M (2004) Directional wind shear within an old-growth temperate rainforest. Observations and model results. Agric For Meteorol 125:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Raabe A (1983) On the relation between the drag coefficient and fetch above the sea in the case of off-shore wind in the near shore zone. Z Meteorol 33:363–367Google Scholar
  48. Raupach MR, Finnigan JJ, Brunet Y (1996) Coherent eddies and turbulence in vegetation canopies: the mixing-layer analogy. Boundary Layer Meteorol 78:351–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rebmann C, Anthoni P, Falge E, Göckede M, Mangold A, Subke J-A, Thomas C, Wichura B, Schulze ED, Tenhunen J, Foken T (2004) Carbon budget of a spruce forest ecosystem. In: Matzner E (ed) Biogeochemistry of forested catchments in a changing enivironment, a German case study, Ecological studies, vol 172. Springer, Berlin, pp 143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reichstein M (2001) Drought effects on ecosystem carbon and water exchange in three Mediterranean forest ecosytems-a combined top-down and bottom-up analysis. Bayreuther Forum Ökologie 89:1–150Google Scholar
  51. Schaer C, Jendritzky G (2004) Climate change: hot news from summer 2003. Nature 432:559–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Serafimovich A, Eder F, Hübner J, Falge E, Voß L, Sörgel M, Held A, Liu Q, Eigenmann R, Huber K, Duarte HF, Werle P, Gast E, Cieslik S, Liu H, Foken T (2011) ExchanGE processes in mountainous Regions (EGER)-Documentation of the Intensive Observation Period (IOP3) 13 June to 26 July 2011. Arbeitsergebn, Univ Bayreuth, Abt Mikrometeorol. ISSN 1614-8916, 47:135Google Scholar
  53. Shaw RH, Schumann U (1992) Large-eddy simulation of turbulent flow above and within a forest. Boundary Layer Meteorol 61:47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smirnova TG, Brown JM, Benjamin SG (1997) Performance of different soil model configurations in simulating ground surface temperature and surface fluxes. Monthly Weather Rev 125:1870–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smirnova TG, Brown JM, Benjamin SG, Kim D (2000) Parameterization of cold-season processes in the MAPS land-surface scheme. J Geophys Res D 105:4077–4086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Staudt K, Falge E, Pyles RD, Paw U KT, Foken T (2010) Sensitivity and predictive uncertainty of the ACASA model at a spruce forest site. Biogeoscience 7:3685–3705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Staudt K, Serafimovich A, Siebicke L, Pyles RD, Falge E (2011) Vertical structure of evapotranspiration at a forest site (a case study). Agric For Meteorol 151:709–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stull RB (1984) Transilient turbulence theory, Part 1: the concept of eddy mixing across finite distances. J Atmos Sci 41:3351–3367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stull R (1993) Review of non-local mixing in turbulent atmospheres: transilient turbulence theory. Boundary Layer Meteorol 62:21–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Su H-B, Paw U KT, Shaw RH (1996) Development of a coupled leaf and canopy model for the simulation of plant-atmosphere interactions. J Appl Meteorol 35:733–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Subke J-A, Reichstein M, Tenhunen J (2003) Explaining temporal variation in soil CO2 efflux in a mature spruce forest in Southern Germany. Soil Biol Biochem 35:1467–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tenhunen JD, Falge E, Ryel R, Manderscheid B, Peters K, Ostendorf B, Joss U, Lischeid G (2001) Modelling of fluxes in a spruce forest catchment of the Fichtelgebirge. In: Tenhunen JD et al (eds) Ecosystem approaches to landscape management in Central Europe, Ecological studies, vol 147. Springer, Berlin, pp 417–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tenhunen J, Geyer R, Adiku S, Reichstein M, Tappeiner U, Bahn M, Cernusca A, Dinh NQ, Kolcun O, Lohila A, Otieno D, Schmidt M, Schmitt M, Wang Q, Wartinger M, Wohlfahrt G (2009) Influences of changing land use and CO2 concentration on ecosystem and landscape level carbon and water balances in mountainous terrain of the Stubai Valley, Austria. Glob Planet Change 67:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thomas C, Foken T (2007) Flux contribution of coherent structures and its implications for the exchange of energy and matter in a tall spruce canopy. Boundary Layer Meteorol 123:317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Twine TE, Kustas WP, Norman JM, Cook DR, Houser PR, Meyers TP, Prueger JH, Starks PJ, Wesely ML (2000) Correcting eddy-covariance flux underestimates over a grassland. Agric For Meteorol 103:279–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang Q, Tenhunen J, Schmidt M, Kolcun O, Droesler M (2006) A model to estimate global radiation in complex terrain. Boundary Layer Meteorol 119:409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xu L, Pyles RD, Paw U KT, Chen S-H, Monier E (2014) Coupling the high-complexity land surface model ACASA to the mesoscale model WRF. Geosci Model Dev 7:2917–2932CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Falge
    • 1
  • Katharina Köck
    • 2
  • Kathrin Gatzsche
    • 3
  • Linda Voß
    • 4
  • Andreas Schäfer
    • 5
  • Martina Berger
    • 6
  • Ralph Dlugi
    • 6
  • Armin Raabe
    • 7
  • Rex David Pyles
    • 8
  • Kyaw Tha Paw U
    • 8
  • Thomas Foken
    • 9
    • 10
  1. 1.Thünen-Institute, Institute of Climate-Smart AgricultureBraunschweigGermany
  2. 2.HofGermany
  3. 3.Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric ResearchLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.GEO-NET Umweltconsulting GmbHHannoverGermany
  5. 5.Thomann GmbH, Service CenterBurgebrachGermany
  6. 6.Arbeitsgruppe Atmosphärische Prozesse (AGAP)MunichGermany
  7. 7.Leipzig Institute for MeteorologyUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  8. 8.Davis Atmospheric Science SectionUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  9. 9.BischbergGermany
  10. 10.Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental ResearchUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations