English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/56419
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:

The emission factor of volatile isoprenoids: Caveats, model algorithms, response shapes and scaling

AuthorsNiinemets, Ü.; Monson, R. K.; Arneth, A.; Ciccioli, P.; Kesselmeier, J.; Kuhn, U.; Noe, S. M.; Peñuelas, Josep; Staudt, M.
Issue Date2010
PublisherEuropean Geosciences Union
CitationBiogeosciences Discussions 7(1) : 1233-1293 (2010)
AbstractIn models of plant volatile isoprenoid emissions, the instantaneous compound emission rate typically scales with the plant’s emission capacity under specified environmental conditions, also defined as the emission factor, ES . In the most widely employed plant isoprenoid emission models, the algorithms developed by Guenther and colleagues (1991, 1993), instantaneous variation of the steady-state emission rate is described as the product of ES and light and temperature response functions. When these models are employed in the in atmospheric chemistry modeling community, species-specific ES values and parameter values defining the instantaneous response curves are typically considered as constant. In the current review, we argue that ES is largely a modeling concept, importantly depending on our understanding of which environmental factors affect isoprenoid emissions, and consequently need standardization during ES determination. In particular, there is now increasing consensus that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration, in addition to variations in light and temperature, 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, and because of these combined biochemical and physico-chemical properties, specification of ES as a constant value is incapable of describing instantaneous emissions within the sole assumptions of fluctuating light and temperature, as are used in the standard algorithms. The definition of ES also varies depending on the degree of aggregation of ES values in different parameterization schemes (leaf- vs. canopy- or region-level, species vs. plant functional type level), and various aggregated ES 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 ES within the proper context of model structure and spatial and temporal resolution.
Description61 páginas, 7 figuras, 1 tabla.
Publisher version (URL)http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bgd-7-1233-2010
Appears in Collections:(CEAB) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
bgd-7-1233-2010-print.pdf2,24 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Show full item record
Review this work

WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.