 |
| Titel |
Performance of the JULES land surface model for UK Biogenic VOC emissions |
| VerfasserIn |
Garry Hayman, Edward Comyn-Platt, Massimo Vieno, Ben Langford |
| Konferenz |
EGU General Assembly 2017
|
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
en
|
| Digitales Dokument |
PDF |
| Erschienen |
In: GRA - Volume 19 (2017) |
| Datensatznummer |
250149551
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 EGU/EGU2017-13911.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
| Emissions of biogenic non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) are important
for air quality and tropospheric composition. Through their contribution to the production of
tropospheric ozone and secondary organic aerosol (SOA), biogenic VOCs indirectly
contribute to climate forcing and climate feedbacks [1]. Biogenic VOCs encompass a wide
range of compounds and are produced by plants for growth, development, reproduction,
defence and communication [2]. There are both biological and physico-chemical controls on
emissions [3]. Only a few of the many biogenic VOCs are of wider interest and only two or
three (isoprene and the monoterpenes, α- and β-pinene) are represented in chemical transport
models.
We use the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), the UK community land
surface model, to estimate biogenic VOC emission fluxes. JULES is a process-based model
that describes the water, energy and carbon balances and includes temperature, moisture and
carbon stores [4, 5]. JULES currently provides emission fluxes of the 4 largest
groups of biogenic VOCs: isoprene, terpenes, methanol and acetone. The JULES
isoprene scheme uses gross primary productivity (GPP), leaf internal carbon and the
leaf temperature as a proxy for the electron requirement for isoprene synthesis
[6].
In this study, we compare JULES biogenic VOC emission estimates of isoprene and
terepenes with (a) flux measurements made at selected sites in the UK and Europe and (b)
gridded estimates for the UK from the EMEP/EMEP4UK atmospheric chemical transport
model [7, 8], using site-specific or EMEP4UK driving meteorological data, respectively. We
compare the UK-scale emission estimates with literature estimates. We generally find good
agreement in the comparisons but the estimates are sensitive to the choice of the base or
reference emission potentials.
References
(1) Unger, 2014: Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 8563, doi:10.1002/2014GL061616; (2) Laothawornkitkul
et al., 2009: New Phytol., 183, 27, doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02859.x; (3) Grote and
Niinemets, 2008: Plant Biol., 10, 8, doi:10.1055/s-2007-964975; (4) Best et al.,
2011: Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677, doi:10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011; (5) Clark et al.,
2011: Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 701, doi:10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011; (6) Pacifico et al.,
2011: Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 4371, doi:10.5194/acp-11-4371-2011; [7] Simpson
et al., 2012: Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 7825, doi: 10.5194/acp-12-7825-2012; [8]
Vieno et al., 2016: Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 265, doi: 10.5194/acp-16-265-2016. |
|
|
|
|
|
|