Abstract
Eddy covariance data are critical for inferring ecosystem water use strategies. Yet, such inferences are sensitive to a range of assumptions applied across studies, hindering our understanding of water use strategies within and across eddy covariance sites. A recent analysis across 151 FLUXNET2015 and AmeriFlux-FLUXNET datasets found that poor model performance was the key driver of non-robust inferences of ecosystem water use strategies. Here, we leverage this previous analysis to (i) identify the specific assumptions that improve inference model performance across most sites, (ii) explain the mechanisms behind the performance improvements, and (iii) check whether better performance improves water use inference. We find that the common practice of fitting a model to canopy conductance (Gc) derived from the evapotranspiration (ET) observations, rather than to observed ET itself, artificially amplifies data errors and degrades the model performance. Next, accounting for vegetation dynamics by applying a growing season filter or incorporating satellite LAI data improves performance, but the former practice may remove soil water stress periods. Lastly, using the leaf-to-air vapor pressure deficit (VPDl) derived from ET observations as a model input may artificially inflate performance. Based on these results, we recommend selecting observed ET (rather than derived Gc) as the response variable, carefully accounting for vegetation dynamics, and avoiding derived VPDl as a model input; these best practices improve model performance by c. 20% and robustness by c. 80% across all eddy covariance sites. Nevertheless, the performance improvements do not always correspond to more robust inference of water use strategies, as model parameter selection and surface energy budget closure corrections still strongly influence the ecosystem water use parameter estimation in a site-specific manner.
