TY - JOUR
T1 - Correction to
T2 - Atmospheric Stability Effects on Wind Fields and Scalar Mixing Within and Just Above a Subalpine Forest in Sloping Terrain (Boundary-Layer Meteorology, (2011), 138, 2, (231-262), 10.1007/s10546-010-9560-6)
AU - Burns, Sean P.
AU - Sun, Jielun
AU - Lenschow, Donald H.
AU - Oncley, Steven P.
AU - Stephens, Britton B.
AU - Yi, Chuixiang
AU - Anderson, Dean E.
AU - Hu, Jia
AU - Monson, Russell K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer Nature B.V.
PY - 2019/9/15
Y1 - 2019/9/15
N2 - We recently noticed a mistake in Fig. 1b of Burns et al. (2011). While it does not affect or change any of the main results in the 2011 paper, it doesmisrepresent the location of the Niwot Ridge Subalpine Forest AmeriFlux site [US-NR1; Blanken et al. (1998-present)] relative to the Continental Divide. There were two mistakes in creating Fig. 1b of Burns et al. (2011). First, the peak labeled as the “Continental Divide” was not actually the Continental Divide. Second, the east–west distances calculated from the US-NR1 main tower were not correct. (The distances were incorrectly calculated as though the site was located at the equator.) The incorrectly plotted elevation profile is shown in Fig. 1a. In Fig. 1b, we have included two corrected east/west transect lines, one 300m north of the US-NR1 main tower [as used in Burns et al. (2011)], and one due east/west of the main tower. These corrected transects reveal that the distance from the US-NR1 main tower to the divide is on the order of 8 km, and the elevation of the Continental Divide is closer to 3800 m, not 3600m as described in Burns et al. (2011).
AB - We recently noticed a mistake in Fig. 1b of Burns et al. (2011). While it does not affect or change any of the main results in the 2011 paper, it doesmisrepresent the location of the Niwot Ridge Subalpine Forest AmeriFlux site [US-NR1; Blanken et al. (1998-present)] relative to the Continental Divide. There were two mistakes in creating Fig. 1b of Burns et al. (2011). First, the peak labeled as the “Continental Divide” was not actually the Continental Divide. Second, the east–west distances calculated from the US-NR1 main tower were not correct. (The distances were incorrectly calculated as though the site was located at the equator.) The incorrectly plotted elevation profile is shown in Fig. 1a. In Fig. 1b, we have included two corrected east/west transect lines, one 300m north of the US-NR1 main tower [as used in Burns et al. (2011)], and one due east/west of the main tower. These corrected transects reveal that the distance from the US-NR1 main tower to the divide is on the order of 8 km, and the elevation of the Continental Divide is closer to 3800 m, not 3600m as described in Burns et al. (2011).
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85062784737
U2 - 10.1007/s10546-019-00436-5
DO - 10.1007/s10546-019-00436-5
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:85062784737
SN - 0006-8314
VL - 172
SP - 481
EP - 484
JO - Boundary-Layer Meteorology
JF - Boundary-Layer Meteorology
IS - 3
ER -