•Single-layer canopy parameterizations in land surface models may be insufficient.•Simulations with a one-layer canopy are degraded compared to a multilayer model.•Results differ because of ...within-canopy temperature and wind speed profiles.•Single-layer canopies cannot capture gradients of leaf water potential.•Additional resolution over 5–10 layers gives little change in model performance.
The land surface models that provide surface fluxes of energy and mass to the atmosphere in weather forecast and climate models typically represent plant canopies as a homogenous single layer of phytomass without vertical structure (commonly referred to as a big leaf). This modeling paradigm harkens back to a 30–40-year-old debate about whether big-leaf models adequately simulate fluxes for vegetated surfaces compared to more complex and computationally costly multilayer canopy models. This article revisits that scientific debate. We review the early literature to place our findings in context and discuss recent advancements in roughness sublayer theory, observations of canopy structure and leaf traits, and computational methods that facilitate the use of multilayer models. Using a model with variable vertical resolution, we compare a multilayer canopy representation with the equivalent one-layer canopy to ask how well the one-layer canopy replicates the multilayer benchmark and to identify why differences occur. Comparisons with flux tower measurements at several forest sites spanning multiple years show that sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, gross primary production, and friction velocity for the one-layer canopy degrade in comparison to the benchmark multilayer canopy. For the forest sites considered, 5–10 canopy layers sufficiently reproduce the observed fluxes. Vertical variation of within-canopy air temperature, specific humidity, and wind speed in the multilayer canopy alters fluxes compared with the one-layer canopy. The vertical profile of leaf water potential, in which the upper canopy is water-stressed on dry soils, also causes differences between the one-layer and multilayer canopies. The differences between one-layer and multilayer canopies suggest that the land surface modeling community should revisit the big-leaf surface flux parameterizations used in models.
•The rainfall interception evaporation process remains poorly understood.•Water budget methods typically produce higher estimates than energy budget methods.•Analysis of FLUXNET micrometeorological ...observations shows several causes.•Eddy-covariance measurements during rainfall should be treated with caution.•Careful data treatment could reconcile water and energy budget derived estimates.
Evaporation from wet canopies (E) can return up to half of incident rainfall back into the atmosphere and is a major cause of the difference in water use between forests and short vegetation. Canopy water budget measurements often suggest values of E during rainfall that are several times greater than those predicted from Penman–Monteith theory. Our literature review identified potential issues with both estimation approaches, producing several hypotheses that were tested using micrometeorological observations from 128 FLUXNET sites world-wide. The analysis shows that FLUXNET eddy-covariance measurements tend to provide unreliable measurements of E during rainfall. However, the other micrometeorological FLUXNET observations do provide clues as to why conventional Penman–Monteith applications underestimate E. Aerodynamic exchange rather than radiation often drives E during rainfall, and hence errors in air humidity measurement and aerodynamic conductance calculation have considerable impact. Furthermore, evaporative cooling promotes a downwards heat flux from the air aloft as well as from the biomass and soil; energy sources that are not always considered. Accounting for these factors leads to E estimates and modelled interception losses that are considerably higher. On the other hand, canopy water budget measurements can lead to overestimates of E due to spatial sampling errors in throughfall and stemflow, underestimation of canopy rainfall storage capacity, and incorrect calculation of rainfall duration. There are remaining questions relating to horizontal advection from nearby dry areas, infrequent large-scale turbulence under stable atmospheric conditions, and the possible mechanical removal of splash droplets by such eddies. These questions have implications for catchment hydrology, rainfall recycling, land surface modelling, and the interpretation of eddy-covariance measurements.
The mean flow profile within and above a tall canopy is well known to violate the standard boundary-layer flux-gradient relationships. Here we present a theory for the flow profile that is comprised ...of a canopy model coupled to a modified surface-layer model. The coupling between the two components and the modifications to the surface-layer profiles are formulated through the mixing layer analogy for the flow at a canopy top. This analogy provides an additional length scale--the vorticity thickness--upon which the flow just above the canopy, within the so-called roughness sublayer, depends. A natural form for the vertical profiles within the roughness sublayer follows that overcomes problems with many earlier forms in the literature. Predictions of the mean flow profiles are shown to match observations over a range of canopy types and stabilities. The unified theory predicts that key parameters, such as the displacement height and roughness length, have a significant dependence on the boundary-layer stability. Assuming one of these parameters a priori leads to the incorrect variation with stability of the others and incorrect predictions of the mean wind speed profile. The roughness sublayer has a greater impact on the mean wind speed in stable than unstable conditions. The presence of a roughness sublayer also allows the surface to exert a greater drag on the boundary layer for an equivalent value of the near-surface wind speed than would otherwise occur. This characteristic would alter predictions of the evolution of the boundary layer and surface states if included within numerical weather prediction models.
Turbulence above and within canopies has characteristics distinct from that over rough surfaces. The vertical transport of momentum and scalars is dominated by coherent structures whose origin is now ...thought to be the result of the unstable inflexion in the profile of the mean wind speed established by the application of canopy drag. This distinctive property leads to the failure of the standard Monin–Obukhov flux–profile relationships over homogeneous canopies, relationships that are assumed in many surface exchange schemes within numerical weather prediction and general circulation models. A modification of the flux–profile relationships is presented that incorporates the effects of the canopy turbulence. The subsequent impacts on the evolution of the surface energy balance and boundary-layer state are investigated within a simple numerical model for the evolution of the boundary layer and canopy state. By comparing cases with and without the modification it is shown that canopy-generated turbulence can lead, not only to the alteration of the flux–profile relationships above the canopy, but also to a different evolution of the surface energy balance and differences in near-surface conditions that would be significant in numerical weather prediction. More fundamentally, the modifications to the flux–profile relationships imply that parameters such as the roughness length and displacement height for canopies should not be considered as invariant properties, but rather as properties that depend on the flow and hence vary systematically with the diabatic stability of the boundary layer.
Land surface models used in climate models neglect the roughness sublayer and parameterize within-canopy turbulence in an ad hoc manner. We implemented a roughness sublayer turbulence ...parameterization in a multilayer canopy model (CLM-ml v0) to test if this theory provides a tractable parameterization extending from the ground through the canopy and the roughness sublayer. We compared the canopy model with the Community Land Model (CLM4.5) at seven forest, two grassland, and three cropland AmeriFlux sites over a range of canopy heights, leaf area indexes, and climates. CLM4.5 has pronounced biases during summer months at forest sites in midday latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, gross primary production, nighttime friction velocity, and the radiative temperature diurnal range. The new canopy model reduces these biases by introducing new physics. Advances in modeling stomatal conductance and canopy physiology beyond what is in CLM4.5 substantially improve model performance at the forest sites. The signature of the roughness sublayer is most evident in nighttime friction velocity and the diurnal cycle of radiative temperature, but is also seen in sensible heat flux. Within-canopy temperature profiles are markedly different compared with profiles obtained using Monin–Obukhov similarity theory, and the roughness sublayer produces cooler daytime and warmer nighttime temperatures. The herbaceous sites also show model improvements, but the improvements are related less systematically to the roughness sublayer parameterization in these canopies. The multilayer canopy with the roughness sublayer turbulence improves simulations compared with CLM4.5 while also advancing the theoretical basis for surface flux parameterizations.
Tower-based measurements from within and above the urban canopy in two cities are used to evaluate several existing approaches that parametrize the vertical profiles of wind speed and temperature ...within the urban roughness sublayer (RSL). It is shown that current use of Monin–Obukhov similarity theory (MOST) in numerical weather prediction models can be improved upon by using RSL corrections when modelling the vertical profiles of wind speed and friction velocity in the urban RSL using MOST. Using anisotropic building morphological information improves the agreement between observed and parametrized profiles of wind speed and momentum fluxes for selected methods. The largest improvement is found when using dynamically-varying aerodynamic roughness length and displacement height. Adding a RSL correction to MOST, however, does not improve the parametrization of the vertical profiles of temperature and heat fluxes. This is expected since sources and sinks of heat are assumed uniformly distributed through a simple flux boundary condition in all RSL formulations, yet are highly patchy and anisotropic in a real urban context. Our results can be used to inform the choice of surface-layer representations for air quality, dispersion, and numerical weather prediction applications in the urban environment.
It has long been suspected that thermo-topographic flows, especially gravity currents, within vegetation canopies on complex terrain are one of the main reasons behind the failure to reconcile ...micrometeorological and biometric estimates of canopy-atmosphere exchange at many sites. However, the physical mechanisms governing the initiation and the scaling of these flows remain poorly understood. Here we present the results of a novel wind tunnel study that looks in detail at the flow within and above an open canopy in stably stratified conditions and investigates the physical mechanisms responsible for gravity currents within canopies. The wind tunnel simulations demonstrate that gravity currents are established through a complex balance of competing forces on the flow within the canopy. Three forcing terms act on the flow in the canopy as it passes over the hill. First is the hydrodynamic pressure gradient associated with the boundary layer flow aloft; second, a hydrostatic pressure gradient associated with the displacement of temperature and density surfaces by the hill, and finally a thermal wind term, where a streamwise pressure gradient is caused by changes in the depth of the temperature perturbations to the flow. The net balance of these forces is opposed by the canopy drag. Gravity currents, however, do not appear unless the turbulence, which supports the transport of momentum into the canopy, is also reduced. This suppression occurs preferentially deep within the canopy due to a Richardson number cut-off effect, which is directly linked to the different transport mechanisms of heat and momentum across the boundary layers on the canopy elements. The gravity current first appears at the ground surface, despite cooling profiles that are concentrated in the upper canopy. Once initiated, a gravity current can propagate substantial distances away from the triggering topography, driven by the thermal wind term. If shown to be robust these results have widespread implications for the micrometeorology, atmospheric boundary layer and numerical weather prediction communities.
The spatial variability of the mean flow and turbulence in and above a model canopy is investigated using three-dimensional laser Doppler velocimetry. The mean flow and turbulence are shown to be ...highly variable in space within the canopy but rapidly converge above the canopy. The coherent variations in the mean flow generate dispersive fluxes contributing almost a fifth to the total flux of momentum, and a greater contribution to the divergence of the flux, within the canopy. The higher-order turbulent statistics are more variable than the mean flow and often strongly correlated in space to variations in the mean flow. The implications of this microscale spatial variability for both field experiments and other laboratory experiments into canopy flow are discussed.
Numerical simulations of neutral flow over a two-dimensional, isolated, forested ridge are conducted to study the effects of scalar source distribution on scalar concentrations and fluxes over ...forested hills. Three different constant-flux sources are considered that span a range of idealized but ecologically important source distributions: a source at the ground, one uniformly distributed through the canopy, and one decaying with depth in the canopy. A fourth source type, where the in-canopy source depends on both the wind speed and the difference in concentration between the canopy and a reference concentration on the leaf, designed to mimic deposition, is also considered. The simulations show that the topographically-induced perturbations to the scalar concentration and fluxes are quantitatively dependent on the source distribution. The net impact is a balance of different processes affecting both advection and turbulent mixing, and can be significant even for moderate topography. Sources that have significant input in the deep canopy or at the ground exhibit a larger magnitude advection and turbulent flux-divergence terms in the canopy. The flows have identical velocity fields and so the differences are entirely due to the different tracer concentration fields resulting from the different source distributions. These in-canopy differences lead to larger spatial variations in above-canopy scalar fluxes for sources near the ground compared to cases where the source is predominantly located near the canopy top. Sensitivity tests show that the most significant impacts are often seen near to or slightly downstream of the flow separation or reattachment points within the canopy flow. The qualitative similarities to previous studies using periodic hills suggest that important processes occurring over isolated and periodic hills are not fundamentally different. The work has important implications for the interpretation of flux measurements over forests, even in relatively gentle terrain and for neutral flow. To understand fully such measurements it is necessary not only to understand the flow structure (given the site characteristics) but also to know the distribution of scalar sources and sinks in the canopy.
We analyse and document the historical simulations performed by two versions of the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS-CM2 and ACCESS-ESM1.5) for the Coupled Model ...Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). Three ensemble members from each model are used to compare the simulated seasonal-mean climate, climate variability and climate change with observations over the historical period. Where appropriate, we also compare the ACCESS model results with the results from 36 other CMIP6 models. We find that the simulations of the winter and summer mean climates (over the global domain) by the two ACCESS models are similar to or better than most of the other CMIP6 models for surface temperature, precipitation and surface specific humidity. For sea-level pressure, both ACCESS models perform worse than most other models. The spatial structures of the prominent climate variability modes (ENSO, IOD, IPO and AMO) also compare favourably with the corresponding observed structures. However, the results for the simulation of the models’ temporal variability are mixed. In particular, whereas ACCESS-ESM1.5 simulates ENSO events with ~3-year periods (that are closer to the observed periods of 3–7 years), the ACCESS-CM2 simulates ENSO events having quasi-biennial periods. However, ACCESS-CM2 has a much smaller bias (−0.1 W m−2) in present-day top-of-the-atmosphere energy balance than ACCESS-ESM1.5 (−0.6 W m−2). The ACCESS models simulate the anthropogenic climate change signal in historical global-mean surface temperature reasonably well, although the simulated signal variances are ~10% weaker than the observed signal variance (a common bias in most CMIP6 models). Both models also well simulate the major features of observed surface temperature changes, as isolated using a multiple regression model. Despite some identified biases, the two ACCESS models provide high-quality climate simulations that may be used in further analyses of climate variability and change.
PDF
