The importance of plant-water stress for predictions of ground-level ozone in a warm world

Emmerichs, Tamara; Lu, Yen-Sen; Taraborrelli, Domenico

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306

Preprints

13 Oct 2023

| 13 Oct 2023

The importance of plant-water stress for predictions of ground-level ozone in a warm world

Tamara Emmerichs, Yen-Sen Lu, and Domenico Taraborrelli

Abstract. Evapotranspiration is important for Earth’s water and energy cycles as it strongly affects air temperature, cloud
cover and precipitation. Leaf stomata are the conduit of transpiration and thus their opening is sensitive to weather and climate
conditions. This feedback can exacerbate heat waves and droughts and can play a role in their spatio-temporal propagation.
Therefore, the plant response to available water is a key element mediating vegetation-atmosphere interactions. Sustained high
temperatures strongly favor high ozone levels with significant negative effects on air quality and thus human health. Our study
assesses the process representation of evapotranspiration in the atmospheric chemistry model ECHAM/MESSy. Diverse water
stress parametrizations are implemented in a stomatal model based on CO₂ assimilation. The stress factors depend on either
soil moisture or leaf water potential and act directly on photosynthetic activity, mesophyll and stomatal conductance. Overall,
the new functionalities reduce the initial overestimation of evapotranspiration in the model globally by more than one order
of magnitude which is most important in the Southern Hemisphere. The intensity of simulated warm spells over continents
is significantly enhanced. With respect to ozone, we find that a realistic model representation of plant-water stress depresses
uptake by vegetation and enhances its photochemical production in the troposphere. These effects lead to a general increases
in simulated ground-level ozone which is most pronounced in the Southern Hemisphere over the continents. The uncertainties
for plant dynamics representation due to too shallow roots can be addressed by more sophisticated land surface models with
multi-layer soil schemes. In regions with low evaporative loss, however, the representation of precipitation remains the largest
uncertainty.

Received: 09 Oct 2023 – Discussion started: 13 Oct 2023

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 6144 KB)

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 (6144 KB)

Supplement (1344 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

17 Jul 2024

The influence of plant water stress on vegetation–atmosphere exchanges: implications for ozone modelling

Tamara Emmerichs, Yen-Sen Lu, and Domenico Taraborrelli

Biogeosciences, 21, 3251–3269, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3251-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3251-2024, 2024

Short summary

Tamara Emmerichs, Yen-Sen Lu, and Domenico Taraborrelli

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2306', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Nov 2023
In this article, the authors explore representations of evapotranspiration in the chemistry-climate model EMAC, and how this impacts air temperature as well as air pollution, focusing mainly on tropospheric O3. The remarks below need to be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

This work presented is within the scope of the journal, and I think the results are robust and quite interesting. However, I have two major concerns:

I think the manuscript has a lot of build-up but then the implications on air quality are not discussed thoroughly. In other words, Section 3.5 needs to be expanded. I listed some suggestions below.

I had to re-read some text multiple times to understand what the authors wanted to say. I strongly recommend the re-writing of some parts. It would probably be a good idea to send the manuscript for proofreading.

General comments:

While reading the manuscript I came across words written in US English and British English. Please be consistent.

I think the manuscript would benefit from having an “Experimental design” section where you describe the experiment setup in detail. i.e., not just the relevant parameterisations, but also the submodules responsible for the land surface, vegetation, etc.

It is not clear what vegetation representation is being used. It was only later in L357/358 that I realised that you have no vegetation in your model. This should be made more clear. The suggestion above would help to clarify this.

Figure captions are way too short. Generally one should be able to understand the figure completely from the caption without referring to the main text (i.e. self-describing). E.g., Fig. 2 - “Anual mean maximum assimilation” Assimilation of what?

Fig. 3 was not discussed enough in the text. Please update the figure’s caption (see above), and also provide the geographical extent of the areas considered.

I find some of your colour bars confusing. When using a diverging colour bar, please decide whether you want the min/max to be pointy or not, but be consistent! The min/max of the colour bars is misused in most of the figures presented.

Fig. 4 - Fix the colour bar for subplot (a). Caption - Which panels are from EMAC and which are not?

Fig. 8 - Color bars. Why do you have a change in stomatal conductance over deserted regions, e.g., the Sahara desert? Please explain this, and if the values are negligible consider applying a mask.

Section 3.5: In the supplement, you show a strong decrease in isoprene mixing ratios. Could you also show the absolute difference not just the relative (%) change?
From Fig. 6 I would expect a strong increase in isoprene emissions given the increase in surface temperatures. Would be nice to dig in deeper here and quantify the increase in surface isoprene emissions and see how this increase compares to the decrease in isoprene concentrations from enhanced OH oxidation. Also, provide details on the isoprene emissions and sensitivities. Are you using MEGAN?

Fig. S1: In some places over Africa (e.g. 20-30 deg S), you show a decrease in the OH radicals but this does not correspond to an increase in isoprene. Why is that? This seems to violate your hypothesis that isoprene concentrations go lower because of increased loss by OH. Similarly, could you explain the hotspot (increase in isoprene) over Antarctica where there are no apparent corresponding changes in OH?

Please include some limitations in your study. E.g. No vegetation representation, and the fact that the biosphere and BVOC emissions do not respond to changes in tropospheric chemistry e.g. ozone concentrations.

Specific comments:

L26: When writing “e.g.” for citations, it is generally expected that you mention more than one study. Please correct all other instances in the manuscript.

L29: ”(plant’s pores)” - I don’t think this is needed here.

L36/37: “Currently” should go at the start of the sentence.

L51: “non-stomatal processes in plants” - like what?

L61: “GLEAM” - Is this an acronym? Please define acronyms on their first instance.

L61: More details are needed on the EUMETSAT satellite you are referring to.

L90: Include unit for LAI m2/m2.

L98: Latter not “later”

164: EUMETSAT was already used. Please define in the first instance.

L184/85: Not clear what you mean here. Do you mean the sum of the bare soil, short/tall vegetation evapotranspiration per grid box?

L193: mmday-1 - why italic?

L246/253: Text not clear. Please consider rewriting this part. “Saharian” - do you mean Sahara desert?

L250: The distribution of transpiration inf Fig. 2b follows patterns of vegetation distribution e.g. LAI. Why would the additional soil moisture in the tropics explain the geographical distribution?

L302: “African desert” - Sahara desert

L308: “...in the southern part of South America …..”

L344: “to to”

L352: “... respective changes in tropospheric ozone….”

L392/393: Provide more details on the “bucket model” in EMAC or JSBACH.

L394: JSBACH - define the model acronym.

L405: “...(LSMs) generally agree with…”

L414: Double brackets.

L401/402: Give more details on the ‘ozone-climate penalty’. What is the benefit suggested in Zanis et al. 2022?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply to comment 1 on egusphere-2023-2306', Tamara Emmerichs, 12 Dec 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2306/egusphere-2023-2306-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-AC1
AC1: 'Reply to comment 1 on egusphere-2023-2306', Tamara Emmerichs, 12 Dec 2023

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2306/egusphere-2023-2306-AC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2306', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Feb 2024
Emmerichs et al. assessed the implementation of various functions related to plant water stress in the ECHAM/MESSy model and examined their subsequent effects on change in evapotranspiration. The authors also investigated the impact of changes in evapotranspiration on ground-level ozone. While this modelling exercise is valuable for pinpointing the appropriate functions implemented in their atmospheric chemistry model, there are a few drawbacks in the current form of this paper, particularly regarding the overall structure and model-data validation. Here I provide some comments for the authors’ and editor’s consideration.
Major comments:
The title of this paper is misleading. It led me, as a reader, to expect a primary focus on how plant-water stress influences ground-level ozone. However, two-thirds of the Results are on testing/comparing the impact of changes in plant-water stress functions on plant transpiration, evapotranspiration, and air temperature. Ozone is only a minor aspect of the findings. It might be more appropriate to adjust the title to better reflect the actual results. If the authors aim to quantify the effect of plant water stress on ozone, the results should provide the correlation between the water stress index/ET/Temperature and ozone concentration.

It is not clear to me from the text how the change in evapotranspiration (ET) will affect ozone concentration through atmospheric chemical processes. I was trying to get some basics from the Introduction and Method but was unsuccessful. Although the author does mention chemical processes in Section 3.5, it would be more effective to introduce this information much earlier to provide a general understanding of how changes in ET could impact ozone. While the relationship may be self-evident in atmospheric chemistry, it is still essential to include basic information in the paper to present a comprehensive story.

A major concern regarding the model's performance is the absence of model-measurement validation. All data presented in Section 2.2 consist of simulations from other models. No ground-based data were used to validate the ET estimates obtained by modifying the plant-water stress functions in their model. Data from EMUETSAT or GLEAM may provide a robust estimation of ET by validating their performance against ground-based measurements. As an independent model, the outputs from ECHAM/MESSy should also be validated against ground-based measurements. It is feasible to get the ET measurements from the FLUXNET network nowadays. A direct comparison in a 1:1 space, plotting ground-based measurements against model estimates, would provide a clear assessment of the model's performance and illustrate how changes in plant water stress functions impact ET and other model outputs.

Minor comments:
The first 4 sentences of the abstract were written in a way that jumps from one topic to another without logical connections.

“Overall, the new functionalities” What do these new functionalities refer to? No mention in the previous text.

Before Line 55, there should be a section to introduce the research background on ozone using modelling.

In line 55, please provide the full name of MESSy, where it is first introduced.

From Lines 105 to 115, it is not clear what are inputs and outputs from the listed equation. It states (L154) that “The two schemes are combined afterwards to yield a smooth function for An” and then (L108)“ to yield the stomatal conductance (gs)”. Is An used to calculate gs after An is derived from Am?

The temperature dependence of gm is highly variable. What function is used to describe gm and why in your model?

Line 119 how do you implement the water stress function into the stomatal conductance? Please provide the used function here.

Figure 2 How the Am,max is derived? It seems unrealistic in central Australia and southern Africa where most of the area is desert with low photosynthesis but model predictions of Am,max are high in those regions in panel a.

Line 344, delete “to”

Line 372 Please elaborate on the correlation between stomatal conductance and photosynthesis and how the change in CO2 concentration will affect the stomatal conductance and photosynthesis differently.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tamara Emmerichs, 12 Mar 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2306/egusphere-2023-2306-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2306', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Nov 2023
In this article, the authors explore representations of evapotranspiration in the chemistry-climate model EMAC, and how this impacts air temperature as well as air pollution, focusing mainly on tropospheric O3. The remarks below need to be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

This work presented is within the scope of the journal, and I think the results are robust and quite interesting. However, I have two major concerns:

I think the manuscript has a lot of build-up but then the implications on air quality are not discussed thoroughly. In other words, Section 3.5 needs to be expanded. I listed some suggestions below.

I had to re-read some text multiple times to understand what the authors wanted to say. I strongly recommend the re-writing of some parts. It would probably be a good idea to send the manuscript for proofreading.

General comments:

While reading the manuscript I came across words written in US English and British English. Please be consistent.

I think the manuscript would benefit from having an “Experimental design” section where you describe the experiment setup in detail. i.e., not just the relevant parameterisations, but also the submodules responsible for the land surface, vegetation, etc.

It is not clear what vegetation representation is being used. It was only later in L357/358 that I realised that you have no vegetation in your model. This should be made more clear. The suggestion above would help to clarify this.

Figure captions are way too short. Generally one should be able to understand the figure completely from the caption without referring to the main text (i.e. self-describing). E.g., Fig. 2 - “Anual mean maximum assimilation” Assimilation of what?

Fig. 3 was not discussed enough in the text. Please update the figure’s caption (see above), and also provide the geographical extent of the areas considered.

I find some of your colour bars confusing. When using a diverging colour bar, please decide whether you want the min/max to be pointy or not, but be consistent! The min/max of the colour bars is misused in most of the figures presented.

Fig. 4 - Fix the colour bar for subplot (a). Caption - Which panels are from EMAC and which are not?

Fig. 8 - Color bars. Why do you have a change in stomatal conductance over deserted regions, e.g., the Sahara desert? Please explain this, and if the values are negligible consider applying a mask.

Section 3.5: In the supplement, you show a strong decrease in isoprene mixing ratios. Could you also show the absolute difference not just the relative (%) change?
From Fig. 6 I would expect a strong increase in isoprene emissions given the increase in surface temperatures. Would be nice to dig in deeper here and quantify the increase in surface isoprene emissions and see how this increase compares to the decrease in isoprene concentrations from enhanced OH oxidation. Also, provide details on the isoprene emissions and sensitivities. Are you using MEGAN?

Fig. S1: In some places over Africa (e.g. 20-30 deg S), you show a decrease in the OH radicals but this does not correspond to an increase in isoprene. Why is that? This seems to violate your hypothesis that isoprene concentrations go lower because of increased loss by OH. Similarly, could you explain the hotspot (increase in isoprene) over Antarctica where there are no apparent corresponding changes in OH?

Please include some limitations in your study. E.g. No vegetation representation, and the fact that the biosphere and BVOC emissions do not respond to changes in tropospheric chemistry e.g. ozone concentrations.

Specific comments:

L26: When writing “e.g.” for citations, it is generally expected that you mention more than one study. Please correct all other instances in the manuscript.

L29: ”(plant’s pores)” - I don’t think this is needed here.

L36/37: “Currently” should go at the start of the sentence.

L51: “non-stomatal processes in plants” - like what?

L61: “GLEAM” - Is this an acronym? Please define acronyms on their first instance.

L61: More details are needed on the EUMETSAT satellite you are referring to.

L90: Include unit for LAI m2/m2.

L98: Latter not “later”

164: EUMETSAT was already used. Please define in the first instance.

L184/85: Not clear what you mean here. Do you mean the sum of the bare soil, short/tall vegetation evapotranspiration per grid box?

L193: mmday-1 - why italic?

L246/253: Text not clear. Please consider rewriting this part. “Saharian” - do you mean Sahara desert?

L250: The distribution of transpiration inf Fig. 2b follows patterns of vegetation distribution e.g. LAI. Why would the additional soil moisture in the tropics explain the geographical distribution?

L302: “African desert” - Sahara desert

L308: “...in the southern part of South America …..”

L344: “to to”

L352: “... respective changes in tropospheric ozone….”

L392/393: Provide more details on the “bucket model” in EMAC or JSBACH.

L394: JSBACH - define the model acronym.

L405: “...(LSMs) generally agree with…”

L414: Double brackets.

L401/402: Give more details on the ‘ozone-climate penalty’. What is the benefit suggested in Zanis et al. 2022?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply to comment 1 on egusphere-2023-2306', Tamara Emmerichs, 12 Dec 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2306/egusphere-2023-2306-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-AC1
AC1: 'Reply to comment 1 on egusphere-2023-2306', Tamara Emmerichs, 12 Dec 2023

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2306/egusphere-2023-2306-AC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2306', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Feb 2024
Emmerichs et al. assessed the implementation of various functions related to plant water stress in the ECHAM/MESSy model and examined their subsequent effects on change in evapotranspiration. The authors also investigated the impact of changes in evapotranspiration on ground-level ozone. While this modelling exercise is valuable for pinpointing the appropriate functions implemented in their atmospheric chemistry model, there are a few drawbacks in the current form of this paper, particularly regarding the overall structure and model-data validation. Here I provide some comments for the authors’ and editor’s consideration.
Major comments:
The title of this paper is misleading. It led me, as a reader, to expect a primary focus on how plant-water stress influences ground-level ozone. However, two-thirds of the Results are on testing/comparing the impact of changes in plant-water stress functions on plant transpiration, evapotranspiration, and air temperature. Ozone is only a minor aspect of the findings. It might be more appropriate to adjust the title to better reflect the actual results. If the authors aim to quantify the effect of plant water stress on ozone, the results should provide the correlation between the water stress index/ET/Temperature and ozone concentration.

It is not clear to me from the text how the change in evapotranspiration (ET) will affect ozone concentration through atmospheric chemical processes. I was trying to get some basics from the Introduction and Method but was unsuccessful. Although the author does mention chemical processes in Section 3.5, it would be more effective to introduce this information much earlier to provide a general understanding of how changes in ET could impact ozone. While the relationship may be self-evident in atmospheric chemistry, it is still essential to include basic information in the paper to present a comprehensive story.

A major concern regarding the model's performance is the absence of model-measurement validation. All data presented in Section 2.2 consist of simulations from other models. No ground-based data were used to validate the ET estimates obtained by modifying the plant-water stress functions in their model. Data from EMUETSAT or GLEAM may provide a robust estimation of ET by validating their performance against ground-based measurements. As an independent model, the outputs from ECHAM/MESSy should also be validated against ground-based measurements. It is feasible to get the ET measurements from the FLUXNET network nowadays. A direct comparison in a 1:1 space, plotting ground-based measurements against model estimates, would provide a clear assessment of the model's performance and illustrate how changes in plant water stress functions impact ET and other model outputs.

Minor comments:
The first 4 sentences of the abstract were written in a way that jumps from one topic to another without logical connections.

“Overall, the new functionalities” What do these new functionalities refer to? No mention in the previous text.

Before Line 55, there should be a section to introduce the research background on ozone using modelling.

In line 55, please provide the full name of MESSy, where it is first introduced.

From Lines 105 to 115, it is not clear what are inputs and outputs from the listed equation. It states (L154) that “The two schemes are combined afterwards to yield a smooth function for An” and then (L108)“ to yield the stomatal conductance (gs)”. Is An used to calculate gs after An is derived from Am?

The temperature dependence of gm is highly variable. What function is used to describe gm and why in your model?

Line 119 how do you implement the water stress function into the stomatal conductance? Please provide the used function here.

Figure 2 How the Am,max is derived? It seems unrealistic in central Australia and southern Africa where most of the area is desert with low photosynthesis but model predictions of Am,max are high in those regions in panel a.

Line 344, delete “to”

Line 372 Please elaborate on the correlation between stomatal conductance and photosynthesis and how the change in CO2 concentration will affect the stomatal conductance and photosynthesis differently.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tamara Emmerichs, 12 Mar 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2306/egusphere-2023-2306-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (22 Mar 2024) by David Campbell

The reviewers were generally positive about this manuscript's suitability and scientific contribution once their concerns are addressed. The authors have responded positively to the reviewers' comments and questions, so I invite them to submit a revised manuscript based on those responses.

Further to the reviewers’ comments, I request that the authors take into account these additional comments:
1. In the authors' proposed changes to their abstract in response to the comment by Reviewer 2, the first proposed sentence is not correct. The evaporation phase change is the point in the hydrological cycle where a large fraction of absorbed solar radiation enters the cycle. But it is solar radiation that "drives". Also, the proposed sentences are at least as disconnected as in the submitted version, perhaps more so. For instance, “Transpiration through leaf stomata contributes a major fraction.” Major fraction of what?

2. Please ensure that Reviewer 1’s comments about figure captions is addressed (figure and caption should stand alone). The proposed new Fig. 2 does not appear to be properly attributed.

3. At line 93, “The process of evapotranspiration” is not correct. ET is not a single process. Clarify – do you mean transpiration?

4. Text across lines 97-101 is identical to text in the author’s earlier published paper (https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/495/2021/). Please ensure this is paraphrased.

5. Line 200: “To account for conditions with wet canopy where water is evaporated (and not intercepted)” - Wet canopy evaporation is usually referred to as interception loss, so “and not intercepted” does not make sense.

6. Consistent with Reviewer 1, please have the revised manuscript independently proofread and edited.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (22 Mar 2024) by Sara Vicca (Co-editor-in-chief)

AR by Tamara Emmerichs on behalf of the Authors (03 Apr 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Apr 2024) by David Campbell

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (16 Apr 2024)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (18 Apr 2024) by David Campbell

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (19 Apr 2024) by Sara Vicca (Co-editor-in-chief)

AR by Tamara Emmerichs on behalf of the Authors (03 May 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 May 2024) by David Campbell

ED: Publish as is (24 May 2024) by Sara Vicca (Co-editor-in-chief)

AR by Tamara Emmerichs on behalf of the Authors (28 May 2024)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

17 Jul 2024

The influence of plant water stress on vegetation–atmosphere exchanges: implications for ozone modelling

Tamara Emmerichs, Yen-Sen Lu, and Domenico Taraborrelli

Biogeosciences, 21, 3251–3269, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3251-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3251-2024, 2024

Short summary

Tamara Emmerichs, Yen-Sen Lu, and Domenico Taraborrelli

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2306-supplement

Tamara Emmerichs, Yen-Sen Lu, and Domenico Taraborrelli

Viewed

Total article views: 528 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
365	126	37	528	40	28	27

HTML: 365
PDF: 126
XML: 37
Total: 528
Supplement: 40
BibTeX: 28
EndNote: 27

Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Oct 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2023	111	30	8	149
Nov 2023	45	8	3	56
Dec 2023	32	25	9	66
Jan 2024	32	10	1	43
Feb 2024	41	11	3	55
Mar 2024	41	15	2	58
Apr 2024	19	9	5	33
May 2024	20	7	2	29
Jun 2024	18	8	4	30
Jul 2024	6	3	0	9

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Oct 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2023	111	30	8	149
Nov 2023	45	8	3	56
Dec 2023	32	25	9	66
Jan 2024	32	10	1	43
Feb 2024	41	11	3	55
Mar 2024	41	15	2	58
Apr 2024	19	9	5	33
May 2024	20	7	2	29
Jun 2024	18	8	4	30
Jul 2024	6	3	0	9

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 536 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 536 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 17 Jul 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (6144 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We assess the representation of the plant' response to surface water in a global atmospheric chemistry model. This sensitivity is crucial for the return of precipitation back to the atmosphere and thus significantly impacts the representation of weather as well as air quality. The newly implemented response function reduces this process towards a better comparison with satellite observations. This yields a higher intensity of unusual warm periods and a higher production of air pollutants.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0

The importance of plant-water stress for predictions of ground-level ozone in a warm world

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Supplement

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)