4.7 Article

Predicting photosynthesis and transpiration responses to ozone: decoupling modeled photosynthesis and stomatal conductance

期刊

BIOGEOSCIENCES
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 3113-3130

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/bg-9-3113-2012

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cornell NSF Interdisciplinary Graduate Education, Research, and Training (IGERT) in Biogeochemistry and Environmental Biocomplexity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plants exchange greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and water with the atmosphere through the processes of photosynthesis and transpiration, making them essential in climate regulation. Carbon dioxide and water exchange are typically coupled through the control of stomatal conductance, and the parameterization in many models often predict conductance based on photosynthesis values. Some environmental conditions, like exposure to high ozone (O-3) concentrations, alter photosynthesis independent of stomatal conductance, so models that couple these processes cannot accurately predict both. The goals of this study were to test direct and indirect photosynthesis and stomatal conductance modifications based on O-3 damage to tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) in a coupled Farquhar/Ball-Berry model. The same modifications were then tested in the Community Land Model (CLM) to determine the impacts on gross primary productivity (GPP) and transpiration at a constant O-3 concentration of 100 parts per billion (ppb). Modifying the V-cmax parameter and directly modifying stomatal conductance best predicts photosynthesis and stomatal conductance responses to chronic O-3 over a range of environmental conditions. On a global scale, directly modifying conductance reduces the effect of O-3 on both transpiration and GPP compared to indirectly modifying conductance, particularly in the tropics. The results of this study suggest that independently modifying stomatal conductance can improve the ability of models to predict hydrologic cycling, and therefore improve future climate predictions.

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