地球科学进展

地球科学进展 ›› 2026, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (3): 225 -235. doi: 10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166.2026.023

综述与评述 上一篇    下一篇

涡动协方差系统在地表通量测量中的原理、应用和不确定性
徐自为1(), 郑宁2, 刘绍民1(), 徐同仁1   
  1. 1.北京师范大学 地表过程与水土风沙灾害风险防控全国重点实验室，地理科学学部，北京 　100875
    2.北京雨根科技有限公司，北京 100193
  • 收稿日期:2025-09-06 修回日期:2026-02-07 出版日期:2026-03-10
  • 通讯作者: 刘绍民 E-mail:xuzw@bnu.edu.cn;smliu@bnu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划(2022YFF1300101)

Principles, Applications and Uncertainties of Eddy Covariance Systems in Surface Flux Measurement

Ziwei Xu1(), Ning Zheng2, Shaomin Liu1(), Tongren Xu1   

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Disaster Risk Reduction, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
    2.Rainroot Scientific Limited, Beijing 100193, China
  • Received:2025-09-06 Revised:2026-02-07 Online:2026-03-10 Published:2026-05-06
  • Contact: Shaomin Liu E-mail:xuzw@bnu.edu.cn;smliu@bnu.edu.cn
  • About author:Xu Ziwei, research areas include the observation and analysis of surface water, heat, and carbon fluxes. E-mail: xuzw@bnu.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    the National Key Research and Development Program of China(2022YFF1300101)
全文 ( 63 ) 下载PDF ( 348 )

涡动协方差系统自20世纪90年代被广泛应用以来，已发展成为测量生态系统与大气间能量和物质交换的标准方法，在全球变化研究、陆面过程模拟及遥感产品验证中发挥着不可替代的作用。在系统回顾涡动协方差技术基本测量原理与发展历程的基础上，重点比较了开路式与闭路式系统在气体采样方式、频率响应特性、环境适应性以及数据处理等方面的技术差异与适用场景，并综述了两类设备在地表通量测量中的典型应用及其主要不确定性来源。近年来，涡动协方差技术已逐步拓展至多种痕量气体通量的测量，并被集成在无人机平台以获取更大空间尺度的地表通量信息，成为衔接地面观测和卫星遥感反演的重要“桥梁”。但该技术仍面临通量源区空间代表性不足、能量平衡不闭合，以及复杂下垫面与极端环境条件下测量精度不足等挑战。未来，涡动协方差技术可朝提高系统精度、扩展应用范围，以及研发更低功耗、小型化和自动化的系统等方向发展，以支持全球变化背景下生态系统水热碳通量的深入研究。

关键词: 涡动协方差系统, 开路, 闭路, 地表通量

Since the 1990s, the Eddy Covariance (EC) system has been widely applied and has become a standard technique for quantifying exchanges of energy and matter between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere. Owing to its ability to provide direct, in situ, and continuous flux measurements, it plays an irreplaceable role in global change research, land surface process modeling, and the validation and calibration of remote sensing products. This paper systematically reviews the fundamental measurement principles and the historical development of the eddy covariance technique, highlighting its theoretical basis in turbulent transport and high-frequency covariance calculations. Particular emphasis is placed on comparing the technical differences and applicable scenarios of open-path and closed-path EC systems. These differences are analyzed in terms of gas sampling methods, frequency response characteristics, environmental adaptability, and data processing procedures. Open-path systems, with their fast response, are advantageous in capturing high-frequency fluctuations, whereas closed-path systems offer better control of environmental conditions and are more suitable for harsh or variable climates. The strengths and limitations of each system are discussed in relation to specific ecosystem types and measurement objectives. In addition, the applications of both systems in measuring surface fluxes of carbon dioxide, water vapor, heat, and other trace gases are summarized, along with a detailed examination of the major sources of uncertainty, including instrumental errors, observational environmental constraints, data processing methods, as well as flux calculation errors. In recent years, the EC technique has been increasingly extended to measurements of multiple trace gas fluxes and integrated into unmanned aerial vehicle platforms, enabling observations over broader spatial scales and more heterogeneous landscapes. This development allows EC measurements to serve as an important “bridge” between ground-based observations and satellite-derived products. Nevertheless, several challenges remain, including the limited spatial representativeness of flux source areas, persistent issues with energy balance non-closure, and reduced measurement accuracy under complex terrain and extreme environmental conditions. Future developments of eddy covariance systems are expected to focus on improving measurement accuracy, enhancing data processing algorithms, expanding application domains, and advancing the development of low-power, miniaturized, and automated systems, thereby better supporting in-depth investigations of ecosystem water, heat, and carbon fluxes in the context of global environmental change.

Key words: Eddy covariance system, Open path, Closed path, Surface fluxes

中图分类号: 

表1 开、闭路涡动协方差系统的比较
Table 1 Comparison of open- and closed-path eddy covariance systems
对比维度开路涡动协方差系统闭路涡动协方差系统
时间响应无传输滞后，时间响应同步存在管路传输滞后，时间响应存在延迟
频率特性高频信号损失较小高频信号易受管路传输损耗影响
环境适应性直接暴露在野外，易受雨雪、霜冻和污染物干扰气路封闭隔离，受外界环境干扰较小，稳定性更好
密度修正要求需开展空气密度效应修正可直接测量空气混合比，无需额外密度修正
系统功耗功耗较低配置气泵等组件，功耗相对较高
运行与维护需定期清洁光学探头，保障光路通透需定期更换滤芯，维护管路、气泵等部件
图1 1983—2025年涡动协方差系统研究的发文数量（数据来源：中国知网和Web of Science）
Fig. 1 Number of publications on eddy covariance systems from 1983 to 2025 （Source： CNKI and Web of Science）
图2 1985—2025年涡动协方差系统在不同学科的应用（来源：中国知网）
Fig. 2 Applications of eddy covariance systems in different disciplines from 1985 to 2025 （source： CNKI）
图3 开、闭路涡动协方差系统测量水热碳通量的比较（2025.08.09-2025.08.18，甘肃省张掖市大满站）
Fig. 3 Comparison of water， heat and carbon fluxes measured by open- and closed-path eddy covariance systems （August 9~18， 2025， Daman Station， Zhangye City， Gansu Province）
[1] Baldocchi D， Falge E， Gu L H， et al. FLUXNET： a new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide， water vapor， and energy flux densities［J］. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society， 2001， 82（11）： 2 415-2 434.
[2] Dirmeyer P A， Chen L， Wu J X， et al. Verification of land-atmosphere coupling in forecast models， reanalyses， and land surface models using flux site observations［J］. Journal of Hydrometeorology， 2018， 19（2）： 375-392.
[3] Yu G R， Wen X F， Sun X M， et al. Overview of ChinaFLUX and evaluation of its eddy covariance measurement［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2006， 137（3/4）： 125-137.
[4] Liu S M， Li X， Xu Z W， et al. The Heihe integrated observatory network： a basin-scale land surface processes observatory in China［J］. Vadose Zone Journal， 2018， 17（1）： 180072.
[5] Baldocchi D D. How eddy covariance flux measurements have contributed to our understanding of Global Change Biology ［J］. Global Change Biology， 2020， 26（1）： 242-260.
[6] Yang Y H， Shi Y， Sun W J， et al. Terrestrial carbon sinks in China and around the world and their contribution to carbon neutrality［J］. Science China Life Sciences， 2022， 65（5）： 861-895.
[7] Swinbank W C. The measurement of vertical transfer of heat and water vapor by eddies in the lower atmosphere［J］. Journal of Meteorology， 1951， 8（3）： 135-145.
[8] Baldocchi D D. Assessing the eddy covariance technique for evaluating carbon dioxide exchange rates of ecosystems： past， present and future［J］. Global Change Biology， 2003， 9（4）： 479-492.
[9] Huang Miaofen. Advance of research on surface flux［J］. Arid Land Geography， 2003， 26（2）： 159-165.
黄妙芬. 地表通量研究进展［J］. 干旱区地理， 2003， 26（2）： 159-165.
[10] Desjardins R L. A technique to measure CO2 exchange under field conditions［J］. International Journal of Biometeorology， 1974， 18（1）： 76-83.
[11] Desjardins R L， Lemon E R. Limitations of an eddy-correlation technique for the determination of the carbon dioxide and sensible heat fluxes［J］. Boundary-Layer Meteorology， 1974， 5（4）： 475-488.
[12] Foken T， Oncley S. Workshop on instrumental and methodical problems of land surface flux measurements［J］. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society， 1995， 76（7）： 1 191-1 224.
[13] Wofsy S C， Goulden M L， Munger J W， et al. Net exchange of CO2 in a mid-latitude forest［J］. Science， 1993， 260（5 112）： 1 314-1 317.
[14] Wang Jiemin， Liu Xiaohu， Qi Yongqiang. A preliminary study of turbulence transfer characteristics in Gobi area with an eddy correlation technique［J］. Plateau Meteorology， 1990， 9（2）： 120-129.
王介民， 刘晓虎， 祁永强. 应用涡旋相关方法对戈壁地区湍流输送特征的初步研究［J］. 高原气象， 1990， 9（2）： 120-129.
[15] Wang Jiemin， Wang Weizhen， Liu Shaomin， et al. The problems of surface energy balance closure： an overview and case study［J］. Advances in Earth Science， 2009， 24（7）： 705-713.
王介民， 王维真， 刘绍民， 等. 近地层能量平衡闭合问题： 综述及个例分析［J］. 地球科学进展， 2009， 24（7）： 705-713.
[16] Wen Xuefa， Xiao Wei， Wei Jie. Continuous observation method and technology of carbon flux and carbon isotope flux［M］. Beijing： Science Press， 2022.
温学发， 肖薇， 魏杰. 碳通量及碳同位素通量连续观测方法与技术［M］. 北京： 科学出版社， 2022.
[17] Foken T， Wichura B. Tools for quality assessment of surface-based flux measurements［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 1996， 78（1/2）： 83-105.
[18] Mauder M， Liebethal C， Göckede M， et al. Processing and quality control of flux data during LITFASS-2003［J］. Boundary-Layer Meteorology， 2006， 121（1）： 67-88.
[19] Xu Ziwei， Liu Shaomin， Gong Lijuan， et al. A study on the data processing and quality assessment of the eddy covariance system［J］. Advances in Earth Science， 2008， 23（4）： 357-370.
徐自为， 刘绍民， 宫丽娟， 等. 涡动相关仪观测数据的处理与质量评价研究［J］. 地球科学进展， 2008， 23（4）： 357-370.
[20] Leuning R， King K M. Comparison of eddy-covariance measurements of CO2 fluxes by open- and closed-path CO2 analysers［J］. Boundary-Layer Meteorology， 1992， 59（3）： 297-311.
[21] Aubinet M， Vesala T， Papale D. Eddy covariance： a practical guide to measurement and data analysis［M］. Dordrecht： Springer Netherlands， 2012.
[22] Nakai T， Iwata H， Harazono Y， et al. An inter-comparison between Gill and Campbell sonic anemometers［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2014， 195： 123-131.
[23] Wang W， Xu J P， Gao Y Q， et al. Performance evaluation of an integrated open-path eddy covariance system in a cold desert environment［J］. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology， 2016， 33（11）： 2 385-2 399.
[24] Yang H， Xu W L， Zhao H K， et al. Comparison of flux measurement by open-path and close-path eddy covariance systems［J］. Science in China （Earth Sciences）， 2005， 48（）： 74-83.
[25] Heusinkveld B G， Jacobs A F G， Holtslag A A M. Effect of open-path gas analyzer wetness on eddy covariance flux measurements： a proposed solution［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2008， 148（10）： 1 563-1 573.
[26] Burba G G， McDermitt D K， Grelle A， et al. Addressing the influence of instrument surface heat exchange on the measurements of CO2 flux from open-path gas analyzers［J］. Global Change Biology， 2008， 14（8）： 1 854-1 876.
[27] Kim Y， Johnson M S， Knox S H， et al. Gap-filling approaches for eddy covariance methane fluxes： a comparison of three machine learning algorithms and a traditional method with principal component analysis［J］. Global Change Biology， 2020， 26（3）： 1 499-1 518.
[28] Wang K， Wang J X， Qu Z C， et al. A significant diurnal pattern of ammonia dry deposition to a cropland is detected by an open-path quantum cascade laser-based eddy covariance instrument［J］. Atmospheric Environment， 2022， 278： 119070.
[29] Nakai T， Hiyama T， Petrov R E， et al. Application of an open-path eddy covariance methane flux measurement system to a larch forest in eastern Siberia［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2020， 282： 107860.
[30] Gnanamoorthy N， Kumar V， Ramachandran S. Eddy covariance measurements reveal methane emissions from the Pichavaram mangrove ecosystem， South India ［J］. Journal of Environmental Monitoring， 2022， 24（4）： 1 123-1 135.
[31] Velasco E， Pressley S， Grivicke R， et al. Eddy covariance flux measurements of pollutant gases in urban Mexico City［J］. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics， 2009， 9（19）： 7 325-7 342.
[32] Sun Yibo， Su De， Quan Zhanjun， et al. Overview of the UAV-based eddy covariance fluxes measurements technique［J］. Advances in Earth Science， 2019， 34（8）： 842-854.
孙义博， 苏德， 全占军， 等. 无人机涡动相关通量观测技术研究综述［J］. 地球科学进展， 2019， 34（8）： 842-854.
[33] Massman W J. A simple method for estimating frequency response corrections for eddy covariance systems［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2000， 104（3）： 185-198.
[34] Ibrom A， Dellwik E， Larsen S E， et al. On the use of the Webb-Pearman-Leuning theory for closed-path eddy correlation measurements［J］. Tellus B， 2007， 59（5）： 937-946.
[35] Mauder M， Foken T， Clement R， et al. Quality control of CarboEurope flux data—Part 2： inter-comparison of eddy-covariance software［J］. Biogeosciences， 2008， 5（2）： 451-462.
[36] Goulden M L， Munger J W， Fan S M， et al. Measurements of carbon sequestration by long-term eddy covariance： methods and a critical evaluation of accuracy［J］. Global Change Biology， 1996， 2（3）： 169-182.
[37] Vourlitis G L， Oechel W C. Eddy covariance measurements of CO2 and energy fluxes of an Alaskan tussock tundra ecosystem［J］. Ecology， 1999， 80（2）： 686-701.
[38] Wall A M， Campbell D I， Mudge P L， et al. Temperate grazed grassland carbon balances for two adjacent paddocks determined separately from one eddy covariance system［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2020， 287： 107942.
[39] Stoy P C， Mauder M， Foken T， et al. A data-driven analysis of energy balance closure across FLUXNET research sites： the role of landscape scale heterogeneity［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2013， 171： 137-152.
[40] Baldocchi D. Measuring fluxes of trace gases and energy between ecosystems and the atmosphere—the state and future of the eddy covariance method［J］. Global Change Biology， 2014， 20（12）： 3 600-3 609.
[41] Liu S M， Xu Z W， Wang W Z， et al. A comparison of eddy-covariance and large aperture scintillometer measurements with respect to the energy balance closure problem［J］. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences， 2011， 15（4）： 1 291-1 306.
[42] Xu Z W， Ma Y F， Liu S M， et al. Assessment of the energy balance closure under advective conditions and its impact using remote sensing data［J］. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology， 2017， 56（1）： 127-140.
[43] Zhou Y Z， Sühring M， Li X. Evaluation of energy balance closure adjustment and imbalance prediction methods in the convective boundary layer—a large eddy simulation study［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2023， 333： 109382.
[44] Zheng C， Liu S M， Song L S， et al. Comparison of sensible and latent heat fluxes from optical-microwave scintillometers and eddy covariance systems with respect to surface energy balance closure［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2023， 331： 109345.
[45] Xu Z W， Liu S M， Zhu Z L， et al. Exploring evapotranspiration changes in a typical endorheic basin through the integrated observatory network［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2020， 290： 108010.
[46] Wang H B， Li X， Xiao J F， et al. Evapotranspiration components and water use efficiency from desert to Alpine ecosystems in drylands［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2021， 298： 108283.
[47] Wu D X， Liu S M， Wu X C， et al. Evaluation of the intrinsic temperature sensitivity of ecosystem respiration in typical ecosystems of an endorheic river basin［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2023， 333： 109393.
[48] Richardson A D， Hollinger D Y， Burba G G， et al. A multi-site analysis of random error in tower-based measurements of carbon and energy fluxes［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2006， 136（1/2）： 1-18.
[49] Massman W J， Lee X. Eddy covariance flux corrections and uncertainties in long-term studies of carbon and energy exchanges［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2002， 113（1/2/3/4）： 121-144.
[50] Papale D， Reichstein M， Aubinet M， et al. Towards a standardized processing of net ecosystem exchange measured with eddy covariance technique： algorithms and uncertainty estimation［J］. Biogeosciences， 2006， 3（4）： 571-583.
[51] Rannik Ü， Peltola O， Mammarella I. Random uncertainties of flux measurements by the eddy covariance technique［J］. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques， 2016， 9（10）： 5 163-5 181.
[52] Kroon P S， Hensen A， Jonker H J J， et al. Uncertainties in eddy covariance flux measurements assessed from CH4 and N2O observations［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2010， 150（6）： 806-816.
[53] Hollinger D Y， Richardson A D. Uncertainty in eddy covariance measurements and its application to physiological models［J］. Tree Physiology， 2005， 25（7）： 873-885.
[54] Webb E K， Pearman G I， Leuning R. Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer［J］. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society， 1980， 106（447）： 85-100.
[55] Loescher H W， Law B E， Mahrt L， et al. Uncertainties in， and interpretation of， carbon flux estimates using the eddy covariance technique［J］. Journal of Geophysical Research： Atmospheres， 2006， 111（D21）： 2005JD006932.
[56] Moncrieff J， Clement R， Finnigan J， et al. Averaging， detrending， and filtering of eddy covariance time series［M］// Handbook of micrometeorology. Dordrecht： Kluwer Academic Publishers， 2006： 7-31.
[57] Falge E， Baldocchi D， Olson R， et al. Gap filling strategies for defensible annual sums of net ecosystem exchange［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2001， 107（1）： 43-69.
[58] Dragoni D， Schmid H P， Grimmond C S B， et al. Uncertainty of annual net ecosystem productivity estimated using eddy covariance flux measurements［J］. Journal of Geophysical Research： Atmospheres， 2007， 112（D17）： 2006JD008149.
[59] Gilberto P， Carlo T， Eleonora C， et al. The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data［J］. Scientific Data， 2020， 7（1）： 225.
[60] Wilson K， Goldstein A， Falge E， et al. Energy balance closure at FLUXNET sites［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2002， 113（1/2/3/4）： 223-243.
[61] Zhou Yanzhao， Li Xin. Progress in the energy closure of eddy covariance systems［J］. Advances in Earth Science， 2018， 33（9）： 898-913.
周彦昭， 李新. 涡动相关能量闭合问题的研究进展［J］. 地球科学进展， 2018， 33（9）： 898-913.
[62] Mauder M， Jung M， Stoy P， et al. Energy balance closure at FLUXNET sites revisited［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2024， 358： 110235.
[63] Mann J， Lenschow D H. Errors in airborne flux measurements［J］. Journal of Geophysical Research： Atmospheres， 1994， 99（D7）： 14 519-14 526.
[64] Finkelstein P L， Sims P F. Sampling error in eddy correlation flux measurements［J］. Journal of Geophysical Research： Atmospheres， 2001， 106（D4）： 3 503-3 509.
[65] Kumari S， Kambhammettu B V N P， Adams M A， et al. Analysis of flux footprints in fragmented， heterogeneous croplands［J］. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics， 2024， 136（2）： 9.
[66] Mauder M， Cuntz M， Drüe C， et al. A strategy for quality and uncertainty assessment of long-term eddy-covariance measurements［J］. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology， 2013， 169： 122-135.
[1] 卢俐;刘绍民;孙敏章;王介民. 大孔径闪烁仪研究区域地表通量的进展[J]. 地球科学进展, 2005, 20(9): 932-939.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

地址：甘肃省兰州市天水中路8号
QQ：114723517
电话：0931-8762293　E-mail：adearth@lzb.ac.cn
陇ICP备2021001824号-5　 甘公网安备62010202000687