4.7 Article

Assessing the role of soil water limitation in determining the Phytotoxic Ozone Dose (PODY) thresholds

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 88-97

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.09.066

关键词

DO3SE model; Ozone risk assessment; Phytotoxic Ozone Dose; Soil water content; Threshold; Mediterranean forests

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phytotoxic Ozone Dose (PODY), defined as the accumulated stomatal ozone flux over a threshold of Y, is considered an optimal metric to evaluate O-3 effects on vegetation. PODY is often computed through the DO3SE model, which includes species-specific parameterizations for the environmental response of stomatal conductance. However, the effect of soil water content (SWC) on stomatal aperture is difficult to model on a regional scale and thus often ignored. In this study, we used environmental input data obtained from the WRF-CHIMERE model for 14,546 grid-based forest sites in Southern Europe. SWC was obtained for the upper 10 cm of soil, which resulted in a worst-case risk scenario. PODY was calculated either with or without water limitation for different Y thresholds. Exclusion of the SWC effect on stomatal fluxes caused a serious overestimation of PODY. The difference increased with increasing Y (78%, 128%, 237% and 565% with Y= 0,1, 2 and 3 nmol O-3 m(-2) 5(-1), respectively). This behaviour was confirmed by applying the same approach to field data measured in a Mediterranean Quercus ilex forest. WRF-CHIMERE overestimated SWC at this field site, so under real-world conditions the SWC effect may be larger than modelled. The differences were lower for temperate species (Pinus cembra 50-340%, P. sylvestris 57-363%, Abies alba 57-371%) than for Mediterranean species (P. pinaster 87-356%, P. halepensis 96-429%, P. pinea 107-532%, Q suber 104-1602%), although a high difference was recorded also for the temperate species Fagus sylvatica with POD3 (524%). We conclude that SWC should be considered in PODY simulations and a low Y threshold should be used for robustness. (C) 2016 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