Search

Tropospheric ozone (O3) produces harmful effects to forests and crops, leading to a reduction of land carbon assimilation that, consequently, influences the land sink and the crop yield production. To assess the potential negative O3 impacts to vegetation, the European Union uses the Accumulated Ozone over Threshold of 40 ppb (AOT40). This index has been chosen for its simplicity and flexibility in handling different ecosystems as well as for its linear relationships with yield or biomass loss. However, AOT40 does not give any information on the physiological O3 uptake into the leaves since it does not include any environmental constraints to O3 uptake through stomata. Therefore, an index based on stomatal O3 uptake (i.e. PODY), which describes the amount of O3 entering into the leaves, would be more appropriate. Specifically, the PODY metric considers the effects of multiple climatic factors, vegetation characteristics and local and phenological inputs rather than the only atmospheric O3 concentration. For this reason, the use of PODY in the O3 risk assessment for vegetation is becoming recommended. We compare different potential O3 risk assessments based on two methodologies (i.e. AOT40 and stomatal O3 uptake) using a framework of mesoscale models that produces hourly meteorological and O3 data at high spatial resolution (12 km) over Europe for the time period 2000-2005. Results indicate a remarkable spatial and temporal inconsistency between the two indices, suggesting that a new definition of European legislative standard is needed in the near future. Besides, our risk assessment based on AOT40 shows a good consistency compared to both in-situ data and other model-based datasets. Conversely, risk assessment based on stomatal O3 uptake shows different spatial patterns compared to other model-based datasets. This strong inconsistency can be likely related to a different vegetation cover and its associated parameterizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Process-based models can be classified into: (a) terrestrial biogeochemical models (TBMs), which simulate fluxes of carbon, water and nitrogen coupled within terrestrial ecosystems, and (b) dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), which further couple these processes interactively with changes in slow ecosystem processes depending on resource competition, establishment, growth and mortality of different vegetation types. In this study, four models – RHESSys, GOTILWA+, LPJ-GUESS and ORCHIDEE – representing both modelling approaches were compared and evaluated against benchmarks provided by eddy-covariance measurements of carbon and water fluxes at 15 forest sites within the EUROFLUX project. Overall, model-measurement agreement varied greatly among sites. Both modelling approaches have somewhat different strengths, but there was no model among those tested that universally performed well on the two variables evaluated. Small biases and errors suggest that ORCHIDEE and GOTILWA+ performed better in simulating carbon fluxes while LPJ-GUESS and RHESSys did a better job in simulating water fluxes. In general, the models can be considered as useful tools for studies of climate change impacts on carbon and water cycling in forests. However, the various sources of variation among models simulations and between models simulations and observed data described in this study place some constraints on the results and to some extent reduce their reliability. For example, at most sites in the Mediterranean region all models generally performed poorly most likely because of problems in the representation of water stress effects on both carbon uptake by photosynthesis and carbon release by heterotrophic respiration ( Rh). The use of flux data as a means of assessing key processes in models of this type is an important approach to improving model performance. Our results show that the models have value but that further model development is necessary with regard to the representation of the some of the key ecosystem processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]