the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Nov 2023
Simulation of ozone-vegetation coupling and feedback in China using multiple ozone damage schemes
Abstract. As a phytotoxic pollutant, surface ozone (O3) not only affects plant physiology but also influences meteorological fields and air quality by altering leaf stomatal functions. Previous studies revealed strong feedbacks of O3-vegetation coupling in China but with large uncertainties due to the applications of varied O3 damage schemes and chemistry-vegetation models. In this study, we quantify the O3 vegetation damage and the consequent feedbacks to surface meteorology and air quality in China by coupling two O3 damage schemes (S2007 vs. L2013) into a fully coupled regional meteorology-chemistry model. With different schemes and damaging sensitivities, surface O3 is predicted to decrease summertime gross primary productivity by 5.5 %–21.4 % and transpiration by 5.4 %–23.2 % in China, in which the L2013 scheme yields 2.5–4 times of losses relative to the S2007 scheme. The damages to photosynthesis of sunlit leaves are ~2.6 times that of shaded leaves in the S2007 scheme but show limited differences in the L2013 scheme. Though with large discrepancies in offline responses, the two schemes yield similar magnitude of feedback to surface meteorology and O3 air quality. The O3-induced damage to transpiration increases national sensible heat by 3.2–6.0 W m-2 (8.9 % to 16.2 %) while reduces latent heat by 3.3–6.4 W m-2 (-5.6 % to -17.4 %), leading to a 0.2–0.51 °C increase in surface air temperature and a 2.2–3.9 % reduction in relative humidity. Meanwhile, surface O3 concentrations on average increase by 1.3–3.3 μg m-3 due to the inhibitions of stomatal uptake and the anomalous enhancement in isoprene emissions, the latter of which is attributed to the surface warming by O3-vegetaion coupling. Our results highlight the importance of O3 control in China due to its adverse effects on ecosystem functions, deterioration of global warming, and exacerbation of O3 pollution through the O3-vegetation coupling.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(3119 KB)
-
Supplement
(279 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3119 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(279 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2149', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Nov 2023
The manuscript firstly explores the different impact of the two commonly used O3 damage parametrizations which is an interesting comparison with relevant conclusions for the community. The authors additionally use measurements of O3 and meteorology to evaluate the model prediction which, however, could be more taken into account. In general, I feel more explanation and interpretation in the result section can imrove the manuscript, though it is overall well written and understandable. Please find my minor comments below:
- l. 285: The terms 'warmings' and 'coolings' are not clear. This would more refer to model changes or even climate change experiments
- l. 288 "[...] but it shows a high correlation (R=0.96)"
- l. 292 For which model was it also reported ? Is it model-specific?
- l. 296 mention the reason for the overestimation of O3 (counteract the overstimatio of wind speed?)
- l. 298 "reports" of "overestimated" (the model overestimates)
- l. 316 f: But the O3 damage not only depend on O3 concentration, right? How do you come to the conclusion that S2007 is more reasonable here?
- l. 333: 5.5% is this an average over the model region?
- l. 344/345 Please explain the reason for the different changes by the two schemes
- You can be more concrete here.
- L. 366/367 Why is the L2013 O3 inhibition constant over day?
- l. 388/389: The reffering of the different values is not clear. Perhaps, there is a bug with one unit or the brackets.
- l. 423 ff. please split the sentence in two or shorten it
- l. 433-435: To my knownledge that shouldn't be the case? Didn't the other models consider leaf turnover?
- l. 446 f: Be consistent with the O3 unit.
- l. 464/465: I would rephrase to "However, this scheme show no significant different change for sunlit and shaded leaves"
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2149-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xu Yue, 04 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2149/egusphere-2023-2149-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Referee comments on egusphere-2023-2149', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 Nov 2023
This paper use the established methods of chemistry-meteorology-ecosystem modeling to simulate ozone damage on plants over China, and the associated impacts on surface energy balance, carbon sink, meteorology and air quality. The manuscript is well-organized. Compared to earlier papers in this topic, the authors focus on comparing several established methods of calculating ozone damage (S2007 vs L2013), which is an important and new contribution. Minor revision is recommended to address several linguistic and conceptual problems:
L48: Rewrite as “…adverse effects on ecosystem functions, global warming and O3 pollution through…”
L60: rewrite as “…growth, suppressing ecosystem carbon uptake.”
L104: “surface energy balance”
L107: “but” -> “and”
L311: what is “instant O3 concentration”?
L 310 – 313: Clearer explanation is required. L2013 (Table 2) has a lot of PFTs with 0 slopes. That means when stomatal O3 flux is above 0.8 nmol m-2 s-1, the response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance remain constant. I believe this causes the same phenomenon described in L 366 – 367, especially during ozone season. A few CUO and PFT plots could help explain/verify this.
L316 – 318: There is no direct observation suggesting plants in southwest receive less ozone damage. This is not a valid conclusion and not necessary for the paper. Remove this statement or provide more direct evidence. On the other hand it is fair to point out L2013 lacks distinction between sunlit and shaded leaves since direct evidence were given by the authors.
L 343 – 346: Like I explained above: for a lot of PFTs L2013 has constant response after stomatal O3 flux is higher than a threshold, while S2007 depends on instantaneous stomatal O3 flux. It’s more appropriate to highlight the difference in model structure/assumptions that leads to different result between S2007 and L2013 than judge which scheme is better without comparing with direct empirical evidence (e.g. plant trait and EC measurements).
L 393: This paper suggests that O3 damage increase isoprene emission because of increased leaf temperature, which is in line with previous studies (Sadiq et al., 2017). However, isoprene production is coupled to photosynthesis. There are empirical evidence, that high O3 exposure actually reduces isoprene emission when O3 exposure is prolonged enough to suppress photosynthesis (Bellucci et al., 2023). As an empirical parameterization, MEGAN does not include this effect. While this does not completely invalidate the O3 feedback result, this possible artifact in isoprene emission and its potential impact on the result have to be discussed thoroughly.
Reference:
Bellucci, M., Locato, V., Sharkey, T. D., De Gara, L., and Loreto, F.: Isoprene emission by plants in polluted environments, Journal of Plant Interactions, 18, 2266463, https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2023.2266463, 2023.
Sadiq, M., Tai, A. P. K., Lombardozzi, D., and Val Martin, M.: Effects of ozone-vegetation coupling on surface ozone air quality via biogeochemical and meteorological feedbacks, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17, 3055–3066, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3055-2017, 2017.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2149-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Xu Yue, 04 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2149/egusphere-2023-2149-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Xu Yue, 04 Jan 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2149', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Nov 2023
The authors examined the meteorological and air quality feedback of O3 damage to vegetation by coupling WRF-Chem with two O3 damage schemes. This reviewer has a few questions.
First, S2007 seems to calculate instantaneous (for WRF-Chem’s model integration time steps or hourly) values of the undamaged fraction F, whereas L2013 calculates the ozone damage ratio for the entire growing season. So, was one constant L2013-calculated, plant-specific, O3 damage ratio applied throughout the whole simulation period, whereas S2007-calculated O3 damage ratios were time-dependent, when the schemes were coupled with WRF-Chem?
Second, the way the manuscript was written did not show the distinction between sunlit and sunshade in S2007- and L2013-calculated O3 damage ratios, which leads to the question how the ratios were applied to NOAH-MP. This leads to the next question. Why were L2013-calculated sunlit and sunshade O3 damage values for both photosynthesis and stomatal conductance were almost the same, whereas S2007-calculated ones showed such a contrast?
Third, isn’t Eq. 5 supposed to be the integration of Eq. 4 according to its definition?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2149-RC3 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Xu Yue, 04 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2149/egusphere-2023-2149-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Xu Yue, 04 Jan 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2149', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Nov 2023
The manuscript firstly explores the different impact of the two commonly used O3 damage parametrizations which is an interesting comparison with relevant conclusions for the community. The authors additionally use measurements of O3 and meteorology to evaluate the model prediction which, however, could be more taken into account. In general, I feel more explanation and interpretation in the result section can imrove the manuscript, though it is overall well written and understandable. Please find my minor comments below:
- l. 285: The terms 'warmings' and 'coolings' are not clear. This would more refer to model changes or even climate change experiments
- l. 288 "[...] but it shows a high correlation (R=0.96)"
- l. 292 For which model was it also reported ? Is it model-specific?
- l. 296 mention the reason for the overestimation of O3 (counteract the overstimatio of wind speed?)
- l. 298 "reports" of "overestimated" (the model overestimates)
- l. 316 f: But the O3 damage not only depend on O3 concentration, right? How do you come to the conclusion that S2007 is more reasonable here?
- l. 333: 5.5% is this an average over the model region?
- l. 344/345 Please explain the reason for the different changes by the two schemes
- You can be more concrete here.
- L. 366/367 Why is the L2013 O3 inhibition constant over day?
- l. 388/389: The reffering of the different values is not clear. Perhaps, there is a bug with one unit or the brackets.
- l. 423 ff. please split the sentence in two or shorten it
- l. 433-435: To my knownledge that shouldn't be the case? Didn't the other models consider leaf turnover?
- l. 446 f: Be consistent with the O3 unit.
- l. 464/465: I would rephrase to "However, this scheme show no significant different change for sunlit and shaded leaves"
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2149-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xu Yue, 04 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2149/egusphere-2023-2149-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Referee comments on egusphere-2023-2149', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 Nov 2023
This paper use the established methods of chemistry-meteorology-ecosystem modeling to simulate ozone damage on plants over China, and the associated impacts on surface energy balance, carbon sink, meteorology and air quality. The manuscript is well-organized. Compared to earlier papers in this topic, the authors focus on comparing several established methods of calculating ozone damage (S2007 vs L2013), which is an important and new contribution. Minor revision is recommended to address several linguistic and conceptual problems:
L48: Rewrite as “…adverse effects on ecosystem functions, global warming and O3 pollution through…”
L60: rewrite as “…growth, suppressing ecosystem carbon uptake.”
L104: “surface energy balance”
L107: “but” -> “and”
L311: what is “instant O3 concentration”?
L 310 – 313: Clearer explanation is required. L2013 (Table 2) has a lot of PFTs with 0 slopes. That means when stomatal O3 flux is above 0.8 nmol m-2 s-1, the response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance remain constant. I believe this causes the same phenomenon described in L 366 – 367, especially during ozone season. A few CUO and PFT plots could help explain/verify this.
L316 – 318: There is no direct observation suggesting plants in southwest receive less ozone damage. This is not a valid conclusion and not necessary for the paper. Remove this statement or provide more direct evidence. On the other hand it is fair to point out L2013 lacks distinction between sunlit and shaded leaves since direct evidence were given by the authors.
L 343 – 346: Like I explained above: for a lot of PFTs L2013 has constant response after stomatal O3 flux is higher than a threshold, while S2007 depends on instantaneous stomatal O3 flux. It’s more appropriate to highlight the difference in model structure/assumptions that leads to different result between S2007 and L2013 than judge which scheme is better without comparing with direct empirical evidence (e.g. plant trait and EC measurements).
L 393: This paper suggests that O3 damage increase isoprene emission because of increased leaf temperature, which is in line with previous studies (Sadiq et al., 2017). However, isoprene production is coupled to photosynthesis. There are empirical evidence, that high O3 exposure actually reduces isoprene emission when O3 exposure is prolonged enough to suppress photosynthesis (Bellucci et al., 2023). As an empirical parameterization, MEGAN does not include this effect. While this does not completely invalidate the O3 feedback result, this possible artifact in isoprene emission and its potential impact on the result have to be discussed thoroughly.
Reference:
Bellucci, M., Locato, V., Sharkey, T. D., De Gara, L., and Loreto, F.: Isoprene emission by plants in polluted environments, Journal of Plant Interactions, 18, 2266463, https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2023.2266463, 2023.
Sadiq, M., Tai, A. P. K., Lombardozzi, D., and Val Martin, M.: Effects of ozone-vegetation coupling on surface ozone air quality via biogeochemical and meteorological feedbacks, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17, 3055–3066, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3055-2017, 2017.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2149-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Xu Yue, 04 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2149/egusphere-2023-2149-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Xu Yue, 04 Jan 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2149', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Nov 2023
The authors examined the meteorological and air quality feedback of O3 damage to vegetation by coupling WRF-Chem with two O3 damage schemes. This reviewer has a few questions.
First, S2007 seems to calculate instantaneous (for WRF-Chem’s model integration time steps or hourly) values of the undamaged fraction F, whereas L2013 calculates the ozone damage ratio for the entire growing season. So, was one constant L2013-calculated, plant-specific, O3 damage ratio applied throughout the whole simulation period, whereas S2007-calculated O3 damage ratios were time-dependent, when the schemes were coupled with WRF-Chem?
Second, the way the manuscript was written did not show the distinction between sunlit and sunshade in S2007- and L2013-calculated O3 damage ratios, which leads to the question how the ratios were applied to NOAH-MP. This leads to the next question. Why were L2013-calculated sunlit and sunshade O3 damage values for both photosynthesis and stomatal conductance were almost the same, whereas S2007-calculated ones showed such a contrast?
Third, isn’t Eq. 5 supposed to be the integration of Eq. 4 according to its definition?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2149-RC3 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Xu Yue, 04 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2149/egusphere-2023-2149-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Xu Yue, 04 Jan 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 266 | 84 | 26 | 376 | 28 | 12 | 12 |
- HTML: 266
- PDF: 84
- XML: 26
- Total: 376
- Supplement: 28
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Jiachen Cao
Mingrui Ma
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3119 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(279 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper