BRASILFLUX Quality Control Procedure

May 15, 2007

Initial report of the quality control procedure implemented for the Brasilflux hourly
database. Comments are welcomed and help is appreciated1. This document accompanies
a series of plots of the monthly values and daily cycle of the original data
(SITE_fig_bas_merge.pdf) and the flagged data (SITE_fig_qaqc_merge.pdf)

Monthly plots based on 21 days of measurements are also available this were generated
using daily values, if more than 21/24 hr measurements are available. For daytime or
nighttime daily values the criteria was reduced to 8/24 hrs (SITE_ month_bas.pdf and
SITE_month_qaqc.pdf).

(1) Automatic procedure

ta, taed, H Two standard deviation from the linear regression. If taed is faulty, we
remove H (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Relation ta vs. taed at Bananao. Flagged data in red

ws, wsed, Two standard deviation from the linear regression. If wsed is faulty all
fluxes should be also removed: ustar, Fc, LE, H
rr, rg If global incident radiation, rg >500, we should expect that rg is > global
reflected radiation, rr. Two standard deviation from the linear regression
rpar, par If global incident radiation, par >500, we should expect that incoming par
is > reflected par, rpar. Two standard deviation from the linear regression
par, rg We should expect a relationship rg and par, as daytime rg variations are
correlated mostly to par (~solar radiation), we flag data two standard
deviation from the linear regression (par>500).
rpar, rr We should expect a relationship rr and rpar, we flag data two standard
1
You can contact me at: ncoupe@email.arizona.edu
(520) 626 5838
 deviation from the linear regression (rpar>100).
par, Rn We should expect a relationship Rn and par, we flag data two standard
deviation from the linear regression. (Figure 1). Values below par 500
umol m-2 s1 are not flagged

Figure 2. Relation Rn vs. par at Bananao. Flagged data in red

Energy For some sites I flaged data two standard deviation from the linear
balance regression, Rn .vs LE+H (Figure 1).

Figure 3. Energy balance for hourly data at Bananao. Flagged data in red

prec and At some sites, the anemometer gives “bad data” during rainy periods.
fluxes This does not apply to sites that flag the anemometer input or where they
are using correcting software. The precipitation “threshold” I choose is
higher at forest sites and lower at cerrado o pasture sites. I did include the
flag only if related with faulty data. Flagged at: Bananao (prec >2), K83
(prec>5). Not flagged at Tapajos K67.
ee, h2o, LE For some sites I flagged data two standard deviation from the linear
regression, ee .vs h2o (Figure 1). Based on the relationship between vapor
pressure measure of the partial pressure exerted by water vapor molecules
in the air (ee) and the water vapor concentration from eddy (h2o).
 Figure 4. Relation h2o (mmol mol-1) vs. ee (kPa) at Bananao. Flagged
data in black

U, Ued Based on the relationship between the cup anemometer and sonic
anemometer. We flag data two standard deviation from the linear
regression.
V, Ved Based on the relationship between the cup anemometer and sonic
anemometer. We flag data two standard deviation from the linear
regression.
Isolated Any value that was simultaneously preceded and anteceded a missing
values value (-9999.0000) was flagged

If no data was available or no relationship between variables was observed (e.g. ta .vs.
avgprofT), the automatic qaqc routine was not used.

(2) Manual procedure

Plots of hourly time series were also used to verify existing flags and include new ones
(Figure 5)
Figure 5. Time series for pressure sensors (automatic weather station, AWS and EC)
press and pressed (kPa), global and reflected radiation at Pe-de-Gigante. Flagged data in
red.

Outliers and constant values embedded on the time series and manually removed, based
on monthly values and daily cycle plots (Figure 6)

Figure 6. Monthly dpt values for K77 (Nov –Dec, 2004).

Additional comments (I hope useful) regarding the quality of the data for each individual
site:

Bananao (BAN)

 co2 is low ~220 ppm.

Caxiuana (CAX)

 U and Ued seem to be wind direction, wd and wded, respectively. They range
between 0-360 (this can not be m.s-1!!!)
 wded and wd range between 180 and 260, instead of 0 and 360. They seem to be
wind direction on the NE quadrant
 taed seems to have problems during the night-time (Figure 5)

Figure 7. Night time taed measured at Caxiuana

 Large gaps in meteo (>1 month). In general, if automatic weather station (AWS)
and eddy covariance (EC) measurements are different, both values are removed.
This time I removed only the value that seems to be incorrect, based on time of
day and other measurements from each system. Still large gaps are present on
original data, e.g: Dec 1999, Jun 2000, Feb-May 2001, Feb-Mar 2002
 Short wave radiation, rgs and rgsout was calculated as rgsout=rr-rglout and
rgs=rg-rgl
 A lot of times there are constant values embedded on the time series. Is this a
problem of how are we reading the original data or the data itself (Figure 8)
 Figure 8 Apr 2002 PAR at Caxiuana tower site

Jaru (RJA)

 After Oct 11, 2002 (JD 284) Eddy-flux data is ahead 4 hrs. This can be seen at H,
peaking at ~8:00 am, instead of ~12:00, as it was observed in previous years.
 ta shows a large drop 5-10K Jun-Oct 2001. Therefore, it was assumed that 25-Jan-
2000 taed measurement is ta and not taed (Figure 9)

Figure 9. Original time series for ta and taed for Jaru site.

 At the end of the time series, Oct 2002, the original ta values are abnormally high.

Manaus (K34)

 h2o values can change abruptly. I did not remove those as they could be fixed by
a multiplier, in case this is the problem (due to calibration). I am assuming the
variation (span) is correct.

Fazenda N. Senora (FNS)

  I think at some point (Mar – Aug 2002) there were some problems with the
grounding of the sensors.
 Fc after and before 2002 looks different.
 press 2002 looks odd.
 Due to the large gaps in AWS data, I removed only the value that seems to be
incorrect, -the automatic calibration is set to remove only the AWS or the EC data
suspected to be incorrect.

Pe-de-Gigante (PDG)

Santarem k77 (K77)

Tapajos Forest k67 (K67)

Santarem k83 (K83)

 u* during Aug-Sep were abnormally higher than the rest of u* values. LE and H
was previously removed (missing at the original data). This data was flagged and
removed from the qaqc file
 Lower precipitation than in the 2001 to 2003 Ameriflux files (in parenthesis):
1202 (1499), 1258 (1419), and 1315 (1508).

Scott Miller: The attached plot shows three rain sensors: km83 at 64 m, km 83 at 1 m
(sub-canopy) and km 67 (Figure 9). During the overlap period, which is more than 2
years, the 3 rain gauges agree within 10%. The km 83 rain data are not "gap filled" so
missing data are not counted. But there aren’t many missing rain measurements. This
plot leads me to believe that the Tapajós rain data may be ok - if not, then we need to
figure out how 3 sensors at 2 sites logged by 3 different data loggers
all got it wrong by about the same amount.
 Figure 10. Rain (mm) from sensors at km83 (64 m), km 83 (1 m, sub-canopy) and km
67.

Santarem Precipitation

We included an additional precipitation time series file (SANTAREM._prec.dat) where

we compare and join K83 and K67 precip. We use one of the two series, when data from
only one site is available and the average if both were measured (col: 4). The joint series
is multiplied by a monthly coefficient based on the difference between total monthly
precipitation at the Terra Rica-Casa Once gauges minus precipitation at the flux-towers
(col: 5). Col 1 to 4 are YYYY, JD, HR, MI.

Terra Rica and Casa Once are manual gauge stations. This sites are part of the Seca
Foresta project (PI: D. Nepstad), and they are located 8 km away from K67 flux-tower.
This values can be potentially used for K67 and maybe for K83.
Figure 11. Rain (mm), comparisons among sites (k83 and k67) and different gauges
(Terra Rica: manual, k83 and k67: automatic)