Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Evaluation/Fluxnet/r1118cwrr/vs_r1013choisnel


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2013-03-20T15:15:32+01:00 (11 years ago)
Author:
nvuilsce
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Evaluation/Fluxnet/r1118cwrr/vs_r1013choisnel

    v1 v2  
    11= r1118cwrr vs r1013choisnel = 
    22 
     3In general, results are comparable.[[BR]] 
     4One may not say that CWRR gives better results than Choisnel.[[BR]] 
     5Here below are the 2 main differences:[[BR]] 
     6 
     7 * Many coniferous sites (all the CA-NSx sites) are not so well modeled with r1118_cwrr. This is especially true for C-related variables (such as GPP). However this observed biases might be obtained for good reasons because in-situ measured Precipitations are probably underestimated and that these underestimated Precip may induce water stresses only 'seen' by CWRR but not by Choisnel.[[BR]] 
     8 
     9 * There are also large discrepancies for LH and SH fluxes, especially at daily and monthly time scales, for DBF sites. LH is overestimated for Winter months during which there is no vegetation (and so no transpiration - it is bare soil evaporation that only occurs) and consequently SH is under-estimated.  
    310 
    411==  CRO sites ==