An assessment of storage terms in the surface energy balance of maize and soybean

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.03.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Discrepancies in closure of the surface energy balance is often an issue for many land surface types. The role of canopy storage terms from canopy water content and photosynthesis is usually neglected in the surface energy balance of crops. Data from a research flux tower in central Illinois were used to evaluate these storage terms and their impact on the closure of the surface energy balance. When considered separately, the storage terms are generally a small fraction (<5%) of the net radiation. However, the combination of soil and canopy heat storage and the stored energy in the carbohydrate bonds from photosynthesis are shown to comprise roughly 15% of the total net radiation for maize and 7% for soybean during the morning hours from 06:00 to 12:00 h when the canopy is fully developed. When all of the storage terms were considered, the slopes of the 1:1 line between net radiation and the partitioned fluxes (latent, sensible, ground, and storage) increased by 10% and the scatter about the 1:1 line decreased for both maize and soybean with the r2 increasing by 0.05.

Introduction

Modeling of the soil–plant–atmosphere system has gone well beyond the original goal of daily predictions of water lost through evapotranspiration. Models of the plant biosphere are now used to assess carbon assimilation rates, evapotranspiration (Anderson et al., 2000), and the uptake of ozone, nitric acid vapor, and sulfur dioxide (Meyers et al., 1998). Many of these land-surface models (LSM) have been integrated into numerical weather-prediction models to provide more accurate predictions of the input of heat and water vapor into the lowest level of synoptic models. Over the last decade, major improvements have been made not only in the treatment of soil moisture and soil–water transfer (Boone et al., 2000, Noilhan and Planton, 1989), but also in the parameterizations of the canopy physiology. The incorporation of biochemistry into the models of stomatal conductance (Collatz et al., 1991) has placed the canopy response functions on a more scientific foundation, although factors such as the impact of leaf temperature and water stress are still empirically derived.

The current generation of LSMs have further developed the modeling of energy and mass exchange in the soil and plant canopy domains to provide an estimate of the net exchange of heat, water vapor and carbon dioxide between the surface and the atmosphere. However, compared to model predictions, the measured energy balance of many sites is often not closed (Wilson et al., 2002). Potential reasons for the lack of closure include loss of low frequency components of the flux, averaging procedures, and lack of an accurate accounting of all storage terms. Assessments of the canopy heat storage terms for forest ecosystems have been shown, at times, to be a significant contribution to the total surface energy balance (McCaughy and Saxton, 1988). Similar assessments for agricultural ecosystems are few (Mayocchi and Bristow, 1995), even though the problem of closure of the surface energy balance is still a concern (Wilson et al., 2002) for both forest and agricultural experimentalists.

In this paper, an assessment is made of the canopy heat and photosynthesis terms in the surface energy balance in fully grown corn (Zea maize L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) merr.] crops. These terms are usually neglected in models of agricultural ecosystems. This analysis is an attempt to account for not only the storage of heat in the soil, but also the storage of heat by the canopy biomass and water content, as well as the net energy flux consumed in the photosynthetic process.

Section snippets

Soil/canopy energy storage terms

Heat/energy storage terms of the soil–plant–canopy ecosystem can be examined from the complete steady state surface energy balance equation of the system defined asH+LE+G+Sp+Sc+Sg−Rn=0where the net radiation (Rn) per square meter land surface is balanced by the sum of the sensible (H) and latent (LE) heat fluxes to the air, and ground heat (G) flux, in addition to the energy fluxes for photosynthesis (Sp), canopy heat storage in biomass and water content (Sc), and ground heat storage above the

Evaluation of the energy storage terms

To assess the magnitude of the storage terms, data from the 1999 growing season were analyzed for an assessment of energy storage for maize. Data from year 2000 were used to assess the magnitude of energy storage for soybeans. The seasonal trend of plant water and total above ground biomass for maize reveals a sharp increase after day of year (DOY) 150 with water content reaching a maximum near 7 kg m−2 (Fig. 1). As the canopy senesced, water content dropped to approximately 4 kg m−2 by DOY 250.

Conclusions

Our understanding of the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum hinges on our ability to measure and account for all the critical processes that occur in this complex environment. The inability to account for all of the available energy in the surface energy balance has and continues to baffle researchers. Historically neglected as a significant component of the surface energy balance, canopy heat and photosynthetic storage, when combined with the soil heat component, is shown here to be a significant

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Richard Lawford and Jin Huang from NOAA’s Office of Global Programs/GAPP for supporting the commitment to obtain long term measurements in the GEWEX program. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agency or the Illinois State Water Survey.

References (24)

  • D.R. Cobos et al.

    Evaluation and modification of a domeless net radiometer

    Agron. J.

    (2003)
  • J.J. Collatz et al.

    Phsiological and environmental regulation of stomal conductance, photosynthesis, and transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary layer

    Agric. Forest Meteorol.

    (1991)
  • Cited by (360)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text