A model analysis of the effects of nonspecific monoterpenoid storage in leaf tissues on emission kinetics and composition in Mediterranean sclerophyllous<i>Quercus</i>species

Niinemets, Ülo; Reichstein, Markus

doi:10.1029/2002gb001927

Cited by 74 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 114 publications

(311 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most plausible causes of these transient monoterpene bursts from pine stem are volatilization from storages due to temperature increase (e.g., Lerdau et al, 1997), changes in the non-specific storage of monoterpenes (e.g., Niinemets and Reichstein, 2002), or a rapid pressure-induced mobilization of volatiles from resin ducts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tree water relations can trigger monoterpene emissions from Scots pine stems during spring recovery

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Tree canopies are known to emit large amounts of VOCs (volatile organic compounds) such as monoterpenes into the surrounding air. High VOC emission rates from boreal forests have been observed during the transition from winter to summer activity. The most important sources of these are considered to be the green foliage, understory vegetation and soil organisms, but emissions from the living stand woody compartments have so far not been quantified. We analyzed whether the non-foliar components could partially explain the springtime high emission rates. We measured the monoterpene emissions from Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stem and shoots during the dehardening phase of trees in field conditions in two consecutive springs. We observed a large, transient monoterpene burst from the stem, while the shoot monoterpene emissions remained low. The burst lasted about 12 h. Simultaneously, an unusual nighttime sap flow and a non-systematic diurnal pattern of tree diameter were detected. Hence, we suggest that the monoterpene burst was a consequence of the recovery of the stem from wintertime, and likely related to the refilling of embolized tracheids and/or phenological changes in the living cells of the stem. This indicates that the dominant processes and environmental drivers triggering the monoterpene emissions are different between the stem and the foliage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tree water relations can trigger monoterpene emissions from Scots pine stems during spring recovery

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To reproduce the plantation's uniform age, seedlings were established in the simulation year representing 1990, and the density was reduced in the simulation year representing 2000 to represent a thinning. The model was spun up with the monthly climate data produced by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (referred to as CRU data, New et al, 2000;Mitchell and Jones, 2005) for the period 1990-2003, corrected with the anomaly between site climate and CRU climate. The spinup was followed by a simulation with observed daily climate data (temperature, precipitation, radiation) at this site for the period from June 2003 until April 2004.…”

Section: Implementation In a Dynamic Vegetation Model Framework And Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Process-based modelling of biogenic monoterpene emissions combining production and release from storage

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Monoterpenes, primarily emitted by terrestrial vegetation, can influence atmospheric ozone chemistry, and can form precursors for secondary organic aerosol. The short-term emissions of monoterpenes have been well studied and understood, but their long-term variability, which is particularly important for atmospheric chemistry, has not. This understanding is crucial for the understanding of future changes.In this study, two algorithms of terrestrial biogenic monoterpene emissions, the first one based on the shortterm volatilization of monoterpenes, as commonly used for temperature-dependent emissions, and the second one based on long-term production of monoterpenes (linked to photosynthesis) combined with emissions from storage, were compared and evaluated with measurements from a Ponderosa pine plantation (Blodgett Forest, California). The measurements were used to parameterize the long-term storage of monoterpenes, which takes place in specific storage organs and which determines the temporal distribution of the emissions over the year. The difference in assumptions between the first (emission-based) method and the second (production-based) method, which causes a difference in upscaling from instantaneous to daily emissions, requires roughly a doubling of emission capacities to bridge the gap to production capacities. The sensitivities to changes in temperature and light were tested for the new methods, the temperature sensitivity was slightly higher than that of the short-term temperature dependent algorithm.Correspondence to: G. Schurgers (guy.schurgers@nateko.lu.se) Applied on a global scale, the first algorithm resulted in annual total emissions of 29.6 Tg C a −1 , the second algorithm resulted in 31.8 Tg C a −1 when applying the correction factor 2 between emission capacities and production capacities. However, the exact magnitude of such a correction is spatially varying and hard to determine as a global average.

show abstract

“…In addition, it has been demonstrated that the standardized emission rates as well as the shape of the temperature response curve can vary depending on the rate of temperature change (e.g., fast vs. slow temperature response curves; Singsaas et al, 1999;Singsaas and Sharkey, 2000). Furthermore, for less volatile mono-and sesquiterpenes, it has been shown that the steady-state assumption underlying E S and environmental response curves is often not satisfied due to simultaneous controls of emissions by the rate of synthesis and volatility (Grote and Niinemets, 2008;Niinemets and Reichstein, 2002;Noe et al, 2006Noe et al, , 2010Schurgers et al, 2009a). This evidence collectively suggests that E S as a modeling concept depends on the understanding of the biological, environmental and physico-chemical factors limiting isoprenoid emission and, thus, varies in dependence on the model structure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The leaf-level emission factor of volatile isoprenoids: caveats, model algorithms, response shapes and scaling

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In models of plant volatile isoprenoid emissions, the instantaneous compound emission rate typically scales with the plant's emission potential under specified environmental conditions, also called as the emission factor, E S . In the most widely employed plant isoprenoid emission models, the algorithms developed by colleagues (1991, 1993), instantaneous variation of the steady-state emission rate is described as the product of E S and light and temperature response functions. When these models are employed in the atmospheric chemistry modeling community, speciesspecific E S values and parameter values defining the instantaneous response curves are often taken as initially defined. In the current review, we argue that E S as a characteristic used in the models importantly depends on our understanding of which environmental factors affect isoprenoid emissions, and consequently need standardization during experimental E S determinations. In particular, there is now increasing consensus that in addition to variations in light and temperature, Correspondence to:Ü. Niinemets (ylo.niinemets@emu.ee) alterations in atmospheric and/or within-leaf CO 2 concentrations may need to be included in the emission models. Furthermore, we demonstrate that for less volatile isoprenoids, mono-and sesquiterpenes, the emissions are often jointly controlled by the compound synthesis and volatility. Because of these combined biochemical and physico-chemical drivers, specification of E S as a constant value is incapable of describing instantaneous emissions within the sole assumptions of fluctuating light and temperature as used in the standard algorithms. The definition of E S also varies depending on the degree of aggregation of E S values in different parameterization schemes (leaf-vs. canopy-or region-scale, species vs. plant functional type levels) and various aggregated E S schemes are not compatible for different integration models. The summarized information collectively emphasizes the need to update model algorithms by including missing environmental and physico-chemical controls, and always to define E S within the proper context of model structure and spatial and temporal resolution.

show abstract

A model analysis of the effects of nonspecific monoterpenoid storage in leaf tissues on emission kinetics and composition in Mediterranean sclerophyllousQuercusspecies

Cited by 74 publications

References 114 publications

Tree water relations can trigger monoterpene emissions from Scots pine stems during spring recovery

Tree water relations can trigger monoterpene emissions from Scots pine stems during spring recovery

Process-based modelling of biogenic monoterpene emissions combining production and release from storage

The leaf-level emission factor of volatile isoprenoids: caveats, model algorithms, response shapes and scaling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About