English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. Canopy stomatal conductance is commonly estimated fromeddy covariance measurements of the latent heat flux (LE) by inverting thePenman–Monteith equation. That method ignores eddy covariance measurementsof the sensible heat flux (H) and instead calculates H implicitly as theresidual of all other terms in the site energy budget. Here we show thatcanopy stomatal conductance is more accurately calculated from eddy covariance (EC)measurements of both H and LE using the flux–gradient equations that defineconductance and underlie the Penman–Monteith equation, especially when thesite energy budget fails to close due to pervasive biases in the eddy fluxesand/or the available energy. The flux–gradient formulation dispenses withunnecessary assumptions, is conceptually simpler, and is as or more accuratein all plausible scenarios. The inverted Penman–Monteith equation, on theother hand, contributes substantial biases and erroneous spatial andtemporal patterns to canopy stomatal conductance, skewing its relationshipswith drivers such as light and vapor pressure deficit.

Calculating canopy stomatal conductance from eddy covariance measurements, in light of the energy budget closure problem