Weather Station Siting

Effects on Phenological Models
  • Richard L. Snyder
  • Donatella Spano
  • Pierpaolo Duce
Part of the Tasks for Vegetation Science book series (TAVS, volume 39)


Temperature is the driving factor in most phenological models, and proper measurement is critical for both development and use of the models. In addition to selecting accurate sensors, they should be mounted at an appropriate height and properly shielded from short-wave radiation (double shielding is best). Choosing small sensors that respond rapidly, protecting electronic leads, and ventilation (in areas with little wind) can improve accuracy of the temperature measurements. Data should be collected at a height that is typical of other weather stations in the area where the model will be used. Generally, agricultural weather stations collect temperature data at 1.5 to 2.0 m height and weather services tend to measure at 10.0 m height. For phenological models of natural vegetation, it is best to site the weather station in a similar environment without irrigation. However, when the models are used for irrigated crops, the stations should be sited over an irrigated grass surface to avoid temperature fluctuations due to intermittent rainfall at the measurement site. Strong temperature gradients can occur near large water bodies (e.g., the ocean or large lakes) and in hilly or mountainous regions where sunlight is blocked during part of the day. In such regions, more weather stations are needed to better characterize microclimate differences. However, even when the temperature data are accurately determined, inaccuracies in model predictions can occur because it is plant temperature rather than air temperature that truly drives the phenological development. Although little or no literature on the topic exists, perhaps using vapor pressure deficits to estimate plant from air temperature could improve models and make them more universally applicable.

Key words

Temperature Measurement Standard surface Heat units Sensors 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References Cited

  1. Allen, J. C., A modified sine wave method for calculating degree days, Environ. Ent., 5, 388–396, 1976Google Scholar
  2. Baskerville, G. L., and P. Emin, Rapid estimation of heat accumulation from maximum and minimum temperatures, Ecology, 50, 514–517, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cesaraccio, C., D. Spano, P. Duce, and R. L. Snyder, An improved model for degree-days from temperature data, Int. J. Biometeorol., 45, 161–169, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Gaetano, A., and W. W. Knapp, Standardization of weekly growing degree day accumulations based on differences in temperature observation and method, Agric. For. Meteorol., 66, 1–19, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gill, G. C., Comparison testing of selected naturally ventilated solar radiation shields, Final Report Contract #NA-82-OA-A-266, NOAA, St. Louis, 15 pp., 1983.Google Scholar
  6. Horstmeyer, S., Building blocks — What goes on in a cubic meter of air?, Weatherwise, 54(5), 20–27, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Idso, S. B., R. D. Jackson, P. J. Pinter, R. J. Reginato, and J. L. Hatfield, Normalizing the stress-degree-day parameter for environmental variability, Agric. Meteorol., 24, 45–55, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jackson, R. D., S. B. Idso, R. J. Reginato, and P. J. Pinter, Canopy temperature as a crop water stress indicator, Water Resour. Res., 13, 651–656, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, M. E., and E. A. Fitzpatrick, A comparison of methods of estimating a mean diurnal temperature curve during the daylight hours, Arch. Meteorol. Geophys. Bioklimatol., Series B, 25, 251–263, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kline, D. E., J. F. Reid, and F. E. Woeste, Computer simulation of hourly dry-bulb temperatures, Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, No. 82-5, Virginia Politechnical Institute and State University, Blacksburg, 18 pp., 1982Google Scholar
  11. Kramer, K., Selecting a model to predict the onset of growth of Fagus sylvatica, J. Appl. Ecol., 31, 172–181, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Monteith, J. L., and M. H. Unsworth, Principles of Environmental Physics, 2nd ed., Edward Arnold, London, 291 pp., 1990.Google Scholar
  13. Parton, W. J., and J. A. Logan, A model for diurnal variation in soil and air temperature, Agric. For. Meteorol., 23, 205–216, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pellizzaro, G., D. Spano, A. Canu, and C. Cesaraccio, Calcolo dei gradi—giorno per la previsione delle fasi fenologiche nell’actinidia, Italus Hortus, 5, 24–30, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. Reicosky, L. J., J. M. Winkelman, J. M. Baker, J. M., and D. G. Baker, Accuracy of hourly air temperatures calculated from daily minima and maxima, Agric. For. Meteorol., 46, 193–209, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roltsch, J.W., F.G. Zalom, A.J. Strawn, J.F. Strand, and M.J. Pitcairn, Evaluation of several degree day estimation methods in California climates, Int. J. Biometeorol., 42, 169–176, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Quinn, T. J., Temperature, Academic Press, New York, 495 pp., 1983.Google Scholar
  18. Snyder, R. L., Hand calculating degree-days, Agric. For. Meteorol., 35, 353–358, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Snyder, R. L., D. Spano, C. Cesaraccio, and P. Duce, Determining degree-day threshold from field observations, Int. J. Biometeorol., 42, 177–182, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Snyder, R. L., D. Spano, P. Duce, and C. Cesaraccio, Temperature data for phenological models, Int. J. Biometeorol., 45, 178–183, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wann, M., D. Yen, and H. J. Gold, Evaluation and calibration of three models for daily cycle of air temperature, Agric. For. Meteorol., 34, 121–128, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilson, L. T., and W. W. Barnett, Degree-days: an aid in crop and pest management, Calif. Agric., 37, 4–7, 1983.Google Scholar
  23. Yin, X., M. J. Kropff, G. McLaren, and R. M. Visperas, A nonlinear model for crop development as a function of temperature, Agric. For. Meteorol., 77, 1–16, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zalom, F. G., P. B. Goodell, W. W. Wilson, and W. J. Bentley, Degree-Days: The calculation and the use of heat units in pest management, Leaflet 21373, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis, 10 pp., 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Snyder
    • 1
  • Donatella Spano
    • 2
  • Pierpaolo Duce
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Land, Air, and Water ResourcesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Woody Plant EcosystemsUniversity of SassariSassariItaly
  3. 3.Agroecosystem Monitoring Laboratory, Institute of BiometeorologyNational Research CouncilSassariItaly

Personalised recommendations