the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying evaporation of intercepted rainfall: a hybrid correction approach for eddy-covariance measurements
Abstract. Precipitation and interception have a significant influence on the reliability of eddy-covariance (EC) measurements, primarily of vapor fluxes. As evaporation data need to fit both to the energy and the water budget, a balanced approach is necessary to arrive at reasonable values of evaporation associated to interception. EC data of the investigated ICOS site DE-Tha (dense conifers) suggest a large and systematic underestimation of evaporation during and shortly after a rainfall event. Total evaporation of selected interception events accounted for only 24 % of precipitation, which is an untypically low proportion for a dense coniferous forest under a temperate climate. We show that our Rutter based 2D model approach, including spatially variable vegetation information, reproduces reliable estimates of interception evaporation to compare and integrate the results for different source areas. For the EC footprint area, modelled interception evaporation accounts for 45 % of precipitation for the evaluated events. The standard Bowen ratio based energy balance adjustment and the energy balance residual approach are not justified to account for underestimated fluxes during interception events. As a consequence, we propose a hybrid correction approach complementing EC measurements with our 2D model estimates of evaporation under interception conditions to adjust for underestimated fluxes of LE. Our approach uses LE as a link between the energy and water balance and provides appropriate evaporation from intercepted precipitation for the analyzed forest ecosystem. The correct redistribution of the heat fluxes will lead to a better parametrization of surface fluxes in weather and climate models and supports to properly include land use in water management needs under climate change.
- Preprint
(17898 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2118', David Fitzjarrald, 25 Jul 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Stefanie Fischer, 12 Nov 2025
Thank you very much for the constructive review of our manuscript, also for appreciating this work and supporting to improve it by valuable remarks and suggestions within the manuscript. We carefully went through all the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Replies to comments relating to specific lines, paragraphs or tables have been incorporated accordingly. Since the upload of the revised manuscript is not possible during this stage of publishing, revised sections are given by page and line number. Additionally, we address specific questions and major points of the reviewer below.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Stefanie Fischer, 12 Nov 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2118', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Oct 2025
This is an ambitious and well-executed paper that tackles a stubborn problem: EC underestimation of latent heat during and after rainfall. The authors combine a footprint-aware, 2-D implementation of the Rutter canopy water-balance model with standard EC post-processing to build a hybrid correction that honors the energy and water budgets. Event-level comparisons and monthly aggregates clearly show the signal: for selected interception events, the 2D model for the EC footprint is ~54%, about double the EC alone (Table 1), and the annual Etot rises from ~375 mm (uncorrected EC) to ~638 mm under the hybrid correction (Fig. 6b). The humidity-dependence of the underestimation is compelling (LER plummeting beyond ~75% rH; Fig. 5). Altogether, this is an important contribution with implications for flux partitioning, SVAT parameterization, and water-resources modeling in forests. I recommend minor revisions.
I read the other review report after reading the paper and their minor revision recommendations align with my own thoughts. A few additional thoughts for revision consideration below:
- Terminology / notation pass: Define/contrast LAI vs PAI early (site LAI of 7.1 near the tower vs domain-mean PAI of 4.65 used by the model) and maintain consistent symbols; a reader-aid table would help.
- Winter caveat in the main text: You already flag that LE_WB can exceed LEEB in Jan/Dec and that snow isnt explicitly handled. Consider a one-sentence caveat in the Abstract or Conclusions to prevent over-generalization?
- Share code? If feasible, provide a repository link for the 2-D Rutter implementation (Appendix A) and the footprint-weighting workflow to accelerate adoption.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2118-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Stefanie Fischer, 12 Nov 2025
Thank you very much for the constructive review of our manuscript, also for appreciating this work and supporting to improve it by valuable remarks and suggestions within the manuscript. We carefully went through all the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Replies to comments relating to specific lines, paragraphs or tables have been incorporated accordingly. Since the upload of the revised manuscript is not possible during this stage of publishing, revised sections are given by page and line number. Additionally, we address specific questions and major points of the reviewer below.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 777 | 76 | 16 | 869 | 22 | 31 |
- HTML: 777
- PDF: 76
- XML: 16
- Total: 869
- BibTeX: 22
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please note that my request is for revisions/explanations, somewhere just a little more than "minor revisions" but I do want to see the revised copy. Attached is a pdf file, my text review put at the front of an annotated version of the original manuscript, in which my comments are in the margin.