4.7 Article

Observed aerosol-induced radiative effect on plant productivity in the eastern United States

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 463-476

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.09.051

关键词

Plant productivity; Aerosols; Diffuse light; Eastern US; FLUXNET; MODIS 3-km ADD

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Ameriflux Management project under Flux Core Site through Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [7096915]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We apply satellite observations of aerosol optical depth (AOD) in conjunction with flux tower-derived estimates of gross primary productivity (GPP) to probe the relationship between atmospheric aerosol loading and carbon uptake rate at 10 select sites (4 deciduous broadleaf, 3 cropland, 1 evergreen needle leaf, 1 mixed forest and 1 grassland) on hourly time scales in the growing season in the eastern United States. For deciduous and mixed forests, the aerosol light scattering increases GPP with a maximum effect observed under polluted conditions (ADD >0.6), when diffuse radiation is 40-60%. During midday hours, high AOD conditions (>0.4) enhance plant productivity by similar to 13% in deciduous forests. In contrast, we find that high diffuse light fraction does not increase the carbon uptake rate in croplands and grasslands; for these ecosystems, we estimate that high AOD conditions reduce GPP by similar to 17% during midday hours. Our findings are consistent with previous studies that have attributed these contrasting response sensitivities to the complex and closed canopy architecture of forests versus crops and grasslands. C-4 but not C-3 crops may benefit from pollution-induced changes in diffuse and direct light. Further research is needed to investigate the role of local meteorology as a possible confounder in the connection between atmospheric aerosols and plant productivity. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据