global biogenic volatile organic compound emissions in the orchidee and megan models and sensitivity to key parameters
Clicks: 102
ID: 191319
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
102 views
23 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #648 of 850 articles by views in Journal of agricultural and food chemistry
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 850 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
A new version of the biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) emission
scheme has been developed in the global vegetation model ORCHIDEE (Organizing
Carbon and Hydrology in Dynamic EcosystEm), which includes an extended list
of biogenic emitted compounds, updated emission factors (EFs), a dependency
on light for almost all compounds and a multi-layer radiation scheme. Over
the 2000–2009 period, using this model, we estimate mean global emissions of
465 Tg C yr−1 for isoprene, 107.5 Tg C yr−1 for monoterpenes,
38 Tg C yr−1 for methanol, 25 Tg C yr−1 for acetone and
24 Tg C yr−1 for sesquiterpenes. The model results are compared to
state-of-the-art emission budgets, showing that the ORCHIDEE emissions are
within the range of published estimates. ORCHIDEE BVOC emissions are compared
to the estimates of the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature
(MEGAN), which is largely used throughout the biogenic emissions and
atmospheric chemistry community. Our results show that global emission
budgets of the two models are, in general, in good agreement. ORCHIDEE
emissions are 8 % higher for isoprene, 8 % lower for methanol, 17 %
higher for acetone, 18 % higher for monoterpenes and 39 % higher for
sesquiterpenes, compared to the MEGAN estimates. At the regional scale, the
largest differences between ORCHIDEE and MEGAN are highlighted for isoprene
in northern temperate regions, where ORCHIDEE emissions are higher by
21 Tg C yr−1, and for monoterpenes, where they are higher by 4.4 and
10.2 Tg C yr−1 in northern and southern tropical regions compared to
MEGAN. The geographical differences between the two models are mainly
associated with different EF and plant functional type (PFT) distributions,
while differences in the seasonal cycle are mostly driven by differences in
the leaf area index (LAI). Sensitivity tests are carried out for both models
to explore the response to key variables or parameters such as LAI and
light-dependent fraction (LDF). The ORCHIDEE and MEGAN emissions are
differently affected by LAI changes, with a response highly depending on the
compound considered. Scaling the LAI by a factor of 0.5 and 1.5 changes the
isoprene global emission by −21 and +8 % for ORCHIDEE and −15 and
+7 % for MEGAN, and affects the global emissions of monoterpenes by −43
and +40 % for ORCHIDEE and −11 and +3 % for MEGAN. Performing a
further sensitivity test, forcing ORCHIDEE with the MODIS LAI, confirms the
high sensitivity of the ORCHIDEE emission module to LAI variation. We find
that MEGAN is more sensitive to variation in the LDF parameter than ORCHIDEE.
Our results highlight the importance and the need to further explore the BVOC
emission estimate variability and the potential for using models to
investigate the estimated uncertainties.
| Reference Key |
messina2016atmosphericglobal
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;P. Messina;J. Lathière;K. Sindelarova;K. Sindelarova;N. Vuichard;C. Granier;C. Granier;C. Granier;C. Granier;J. Ghattas;A. Cozic;D. A. Hauglustaine |
| Journal | Journal of agricultural and food chemistry |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.5194/acp-16-14169-2016
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.