Stomatal conductance models for ozone risk assessment at canopy level in two Mediterranean evergreen forests

Hoshika, Yasutomo; Fares, Silvano; Savi, Flavia; Gruening, Carsten; Goded, Ignacio; Marco, Alessandra De; Sicard, Pierre; Paoletti, Elena

doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.01.005

Cited by 48 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Outliers are defined as values >1.5× the interquartile range of the 25th to 75th percentiles. Sites and references included are Auchencorth Moss (Fowler et al, 2001), Bergamo (Gerosa et al, 2003), Bily Kriz (Juráň et al, 2019;Zapletal et al, 2011), Blodgett Forest (Ducker et al, 2018;Goldstein, 2003;Kurpius & Goldstein, 2003), Bondville (L. Zhang et al, 2006), Braunscheig (Mészáros, Horváth, et al, 2009), Bugacpuszta (Horváth et al, 2017), Burriana (Cieslik, 2004), Cadenazzo (Bassin et al, 2004), Cala Violina (Cieslik, 2009), Camp Borden , Castelporziano (Cieslik, 2004(Cieslik, , 2009Gerosa et al, 2005;Gerosa, Finco, Mereu, Vitale, et al, 2009,Gerosa, Finco, Mereu, Marzuoli, et al, 2009Fares et al, 2014;Hoshika et al, 2017;, California Ozone Deposition Experiment cotton (Grantz et al, 1997), California Ozone Deposition Experiment vineyard (Grantz et al, 1995), Comun Nuovo (Bassin et al, 2004;Cieslik, 2009), Cuatro Vientos (Cieslik, 2004), Diepoholz (El-Madany et al, 2017), Flanders (Neirynck et al, 2012), Gilchriston Farm ), GLEES Brooklyn Lake (Zeller & Nikolov, 2000), Grignon (Stella, Personne, et al, 2011;Stella et al, 2013), Hartheim (Joss & Graber, 1996), Harvard Forest (Clifton et al, 2017;Ducker et al, 2018), Hyytiälä (Altimir et al, 2006;Ducker et al, 2018;Launiainen et al, 2013;Rannik et al, 2012;…”

Section: Reviews Of Geophysicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…T. Zhou et al, 2017), Ispra (Cieslik, 2004), Kaamanen (Tuovinen et al, 1998), Kane Experimental Forest (L. Zhang et al, 2006), Klippeneck (Cieslik, 2004), Kranzberger Forst (Nunn et al, 2010), La Cape Sud (Stella, Personne, et al, 2011), Le Dézert (Cieslik, 2004), Les Landes (Lamaud et al, 2002), Lincove (Fares et al, 2012), Lochristi (Zona et al, 2014), Central Plains Experimental Range (Massman, 1993), Nashville (L. Zhang et al, 2006), Niwot Ridge (Turnipseed et al, 2009), Polder Piloto de Sarazola (Pio et al, 2000), Ramat Hanadiv Nature Park (Q. Li, Gabay, et al, 2018), Rhineland-Palatinate , Rivox (Coe et al, 1995), S. Pietro Capofiume (Cieslik, 2004(Cieslik, , 2009), San Rossore (Hoshika et al, 2017), Sand Flats State Forest (L. Zhang et al, 2006), Sand Mountain (L. Zhang et al, 2006), Sinderhoeve (Van Pul & Jacobs, 1994), Speulderbos , Ulborg (Mikkelsen et al, 2004), UMBS Prophet (Hogg, 2007;Hogg et al, 2007), Viols-en-Laval (Cieslik, 2004), and Voghera (Cieslik, 2004(Cieslik, , 2009Gerosa et al, 2007).…”

Section: Reviews Of Geophysicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dry Deposition of Ozone Over Land: Processes, Measurement, and Modeling

Clifton

Fiore

Massman

et al. 2020

Reviews of Geophysics

Self Cite

114

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dry deposition of ozone is an important sink of ozone in near‐surface air. When dry deposition occurs through plant stomata, ozone can injure the plant, altering water and carbon cycling and reducing crop yields. Quantifying both stomatal and nonstomatal uptake accurately is relevant for understanding ozone's impact on human health as an air pollutant and on climate as a potent short‐lived greenhouse gas and primary control on the removal of several reactive greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Robust ozone dry deposition estimates require knowledge of the relative importance of individual deposition pathways, but spatiotemporal variability in nonstomatal deposition is poorly understood. Here we integrate understanding of ozone deposition processes by synthesizing research from fields such as atmospheric chemistry, ecology, and meteorology. We critically review methods for measurements and modeling, highlighting the empiricism that underpins modeling and thus the interpretation of observations. Our unprecedented synthesis of knowledge on deposition pathways, particularly soil and leaf cuticles, reveals process understanding not yet included in widely used models. If coordinated with short‐term field intensives, laboratory studies, and mechanistic modeling, measurements from a few long‐term sites would bridge the molecular to ecosystem scales necessary to establish the relative importance of individual deposition pathways and the extent to which they vary in space and time. Our recommended approaches seek to close knowledge gaps that currently limit quantifying the impact of ozone dry deposition on air quality, ecosystems, and climate.

show abstract

Section: Reviews Of Geophysicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviews Of Geophysicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dry Deposition of Ozone Over Land: Processes, Measurement, and Modeling

Clifton

Fiore

Massman

et al. 2020

Reviews of Geophysics

Self Cite

114

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their performance may be similar for ozone risk assessment at selected sites (e.g. Fares, Matteucci, et al., ; Hoshika et al., ), but only the photosynthesis‐based models take into account effects of CO 2 concentration, surface air temperature and humidity on stomatal conductance. The Ball–Berry model (Ball, Woodrow, & Berry, )—widely used in physiological process‐based forest models (Egea, Verhoef, & Vidale, )—should be preferred, especially if it is modified to consider for both ozone‐induced decoupling between photosynthesis and stomatal conductance (Lombardozzi, Sparks, Bonan, & Levis, ), and ozone‐induced stomatal sluggishness (Keller & Häsler, ). Considering that many European forest stands are mixed and uneven‐aged, and that both stomatal conductance and ozone concentration change within the canopy because of variations in light intensity, canopy wetness and in the turbulence intensity, the so‐called “big‐leaf” approach of DO 3 SE may not be explicit enough.…”

Section: Ozone Concentration and Uptake Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their performance may be similar for ozone risk assessment at selected sites (e.g. Fares, Matteucci, et al, 2013;Hoshika et al, 2017), but only the photosynthesisbased models take into account effects of CO 2 concentration, surface air temperature and humidity on stomatal conductance.…”

Section: The Multiplicativementioning

confidence: 99%

Ozone effects on European forest growth—Towards an integrative approach

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phytotoxic impacts of tropospheric ozone on cellular and molecular processes are increasingly understood and quantified. They generally lead to a decrease in plant carbon uptake that is mainly detectable at leaf scale. At larger scales, most of the empirical and modelling studies reported negative ozone effects on productivity, but the latest empirical studies and model developments temper these observations and simulations. Ozone impacts on European forest growth are controversial and seem negligible because of (1) differences among tree sizes and species, sites, data sources and methodological approaches, (2) the moderate link between adult tree growth and carbon uptake, (3) the presence of several confounding factors such as drought or nitrogen fertilization, and of legacy effects of past land use and management on stand development, and (4) the presence of compensatory processes such as tree acclimation, population adaptation and changes in competition intensity and species composition. We provide a comprehensive review of the empirical and modelling approaches available for ozone risk assessment by detailing their respective main outputs, advantages and limits, and examine research gaps. Synthesis. To disentangle between the forcing factors and to better understand ozone impacts at each ecosystem level and feedbacks across levels, and to reinforce the strength of ozone impact predictions, we recommend to combine ozone‐controlled experiments and long‐term monitoring data with physiological and forest succession process‐based models.

show abstract

“…The Jarvis model was widely used for surficial processes and biogeochemical (Guyot et al, 2017;Whitley et al, 2009;Ye and Yu, 2009;Yu et al, 2017). Both models are used to investigate the impact of different environmental conditions on plant photosynthesis caused by different environment status (Hongpakdee and Ruamrungsri, 2015;Hoshika et al, 2017;Ma et al, 2011). from Formula 2 and Formula 3 (Fig.…”

Section: Modelling Of Stomatal Conductancementioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

Supplemental Information 1: Photosynthetic Response Raw Data

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floating dust weather is an annual natural phenomenon in early spring in south of Xinjiang UygurAutonomous Region, northwestern China. Floating dust in air can influence human health and plant growth. Populus euphratica is a rare tree species which can grow in hot and dry conditions. Some investigations have evaluated the effect of floating dust on plants by means of artificial dust to which simulates the natural sand and dust, but the mechanism by which plants respond to sand is poorly understood. The investigation presented in this paper focused on a comparison of the variation in net photosynthetic rate (P n ) before and during floating dust weather, to elucidate the mechanisms involved.Stomatal conductance (g s ) and P n appeared to increase during floating dust weather;in ,which is optimum for plant growth. Aerosol ions, including potassium, dissolved in water collected by foliar structures or tender stems, may come into contact with intercellular stroma and improve chloroplast activity or ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/ oxygenase (Rubisco) levels, such as potassium, thereby influencing L s and L ns . Moreover, potassium, phosphorus, nitrogen and sodium in aerosols appeared to increase P n , and this may be due to nutrient compounds in aerosols, which may have a similar effect to spraying fertilizer on leaves. In addition, the high relative humidity and carbon dioxide concentration in air during floating dust weather may facilitate an increase in P n . levels, such as potassium, thereby influencing Ls and Lns. Moreover, potassium, phosphorus, nitrogen and sodium in aerosols appeared to increase Pn, and this may be due to nutrient compounds in aerosols, which may have a similar effect to spraying fertilizer on leaves. In

show abstract

Stomatal conductance models for ozone risk assessment at canopy level in two Mediterranean evergreen forests

Cited by 48 publications

References 58 publications

Dry Deposition of Ozone Over Land: Processes, Measurement, and Modeling

Dry Deposition of Ozone Over Land: Processes, Measurement, and Modeling

Ozone effects on European forest growth—Towards an integrative approach

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About