the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ozone dry deposition through plant stomata: Multi-model comparison with flux observations and the role of water stress as part of AQMEII4 Activity 2
Abstract. A substantial portion of tropospheric O3 dry deposition occurs after diffusion of O3 through plant stomata. Simulating stomatal uptake of O3 in 3D atmospheric chemistry models is important in the face of increasing drought induced declines in stomatal conductance and enhanced ambient O3. Here, we present a comparison of the stomatal component of O3 dry deposition (egs) from chemical transport models and estimates of egs from observed CO2, latent heat, and O3 flux. The dry deposition schemes were configured as single-point models forced with data collected at flux towers. We conducted sensitivity analyses to study the impact of model parameters that control stomatal moisture stress on modeled egs. Examining six sites around the northern hemisphere, we find that the seasonality of observed flux-based egs agrees with the seasonality of simulated egs at times during the growing season with disagreements occurring during the later part of the growing season at some sites. We find that modeled water stress effects are too strong in a temperate-boreal transition forest. Some single-point models overestimate summertime egs in a seasonally water-limited Mediterranean shrubland. At all sites examined, modeled egs was sensitive to parameters that control the vapor pressure deficit stress. At specific sites that experienced substantial declines in soil moisture, the simulation of egs was highly sensitive to parameters that control the soil moisture stress. The findings demonstrate the challenges in accurately representing the effects of moisture stress on the stomatal sink of O3 during observed increases in dryness due to ecosystem specific plant-resource interactions.
- Preprint
(12520 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(11635 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 29 Dec 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3038', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Nov 2024
reply
General comments
This manuscript presents a multi-model comparison of O3 dry deposition from chemistry climate models with the same observed flux-based estimates at six locations in the Northern Hemisphere. The observational dataset includes a good number of station sites distributed across continents with a good temporal resolution and are or can become available under request. The methodology followed is well explained and properly referenced. Results are clearly presented and discussed. Comparisons with other results in existing relevant literature and the characteristics of each evaluated site justify their findings. The authors made a comprehensive revision of previous studies including stomatal conductance models. The manuscript tries to fill a gap in our knowledge and is relevant for the scientific community, especially for atmospheric chemistry modelers. I only have some suggestions that will improve the quality and readability of the manuscript.
- Line 147, equation (5): the authors explained all the terms in the equation except for B. Could the authors briefly describe what B represents?
- In lines 259 and 260, it is said that the number of sensitivity simulations depends on the model, which can be seen in Figures 4 and 5, and after that, the authors explain the reason behind that. However, I think the manuscript would be clearer if the number of sensitivity tests and the perturbed parameters per model were summarized in a Table.
- On a related note, Table 2 lists the parameters perturbed in the sensitivity test with their corresponding range of values. However, the reader does not know the default values for each parameter and model nor the magnitude of the perturbations with respect to that default value. I think it would be interesting to see this information, perhaps adding it to the table I suggested in point 2.
- Line 399: it is the first time that BVPD appears in the text, but it is not explained what it means. Please, include a brief description.
- Line 405: wrong reference to Figure 5 (it should be Figure 3).
- Lines 419 and 420: “…a reduction from 0.191 to -0.008 cm s−1 for MLC-CHEM…”. Please, revise either the values in the text or the values plotted in Figure 4. In that figure, the values of the wilting point for MLC-CHEM in July go from around 0.2 to something close to -0.2, if I understood correctly.
- Line 465: “..50 cm depth depth..”, please, delete the repeated “depth”.
- Line 552: “…the most important driver of the the…”, please, delete the repeated “the”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3038-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3038', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Dec 2024
reply
See attached file
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
284 | 37 | 36 | 357 | 24 | 6 | 7 |
- HTML: 284
- PDF: 37
- XML: 36
- Total: 357
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1