the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying Forest Canopy Shading and Turbulence Effects on Boundary Layer Ozone over the United States
Abstract. The presence of dense forest canopies significantly alters the near-field dynamical, physical, and chemical environment, with implications for atmospheric composition and air quality variables such as boundary layer ozone (O₃). Observations show profound vertical gradients in O3 concentration beneath forest canopies; however, most chemical transport models (CTMs) used in the operational and research community, such as the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, cannot account for such effects due to inadequate canopy representation and lack of sub-canopy processes. To address this knowledge gap, we implemented detailed forest canopy processes—including in-canopy photolysis attenuation and turbulence—into the CMAQv5.3.1 model, driven by the Global Forecast System and enhanced with high-resolution vegetation datasets. Simulations were conducted for August 2019 over the contiguous U.S. The canopy-aware model shows substantial improvement, with mean O₃ bias reduced from +0.70 ppb (Base) to −0.10 ppb (Canopy), and fractional bias from +9.71% to +6.37%. Monthly mean O₃ in the lowest model layer (~0–40 m) decreased by up to 9 ppb in dense forests, especially in the East. Process analysis reveals a 75.2% drop in first-layer O₃, with daily surface production declining from 673 to 167 ppb d⁻¹, driven by suppressed photolysis and vertical mixing. This enhances NOₓ titration and reduces O₃ formation under darker, stable conditions. The results highlight the critical role of canopy processes in atmospheric chemistry and demonstrate the importance of incorporating realistic vegetation-atmosphere interactions in CTMs to improve air quality forecasts and health-relevant exposure assessments.
- Preprint
(7389 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1910 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 28 Jun 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-485', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 May 2025
reply
Summary: This paper applies the canopy physics (Makar et al., 2017) in CMAQ. Apparently, the science has already been done by Makar et al. (2017). But the implementation in a more open-sourced and widely used community model (CMAQ) and the use the process analysis tool for deeper insights provides a lot of extra scientific value on top of Makar et al. (2017), and worthy of publication in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after some corrections and clarifications.
Major comments:
However, this work has one potentially important conceptual/theoretical issue. The presence of canopy creates segregation between in-canopy and above-canopy air, and this work indeed shows its importance. However, the presence of plant canopy also enhances the mixing immediately above the canopy by generating extra eddies (Harman and Finnigan, 2007). Ignoring this effect leads to underestimation of overall near-surface (z ~ 0 – 2h) vertical mixing. If redesigning and rerunning the numerical schemes/experiments are not feasible, some quantitative arguments are required to explore the size of its potential effects on simulation ozone.
On a similar note, stating dry deposition as “a second effect that’s not covered” (L 139 - 140) is confusing, and contradictory to the fact that the authors keep referencing changes in deposition rates (e.g. L 558, table 4). Please clarify and provide quantitative arguments/references about why this is ignored, and how much would that affect the result.
Minor comments
- L32: Unclear. What is 75.2% drop in first-layer O3?
- L 420 – 425: The word “variability” is vague and confusing, making the whole paragraph hard to understand, especially the final sentence. Please rewrite with more precise and understandable terminologies.
- L 462: what is “lowering O3 diurnal profile”?
- L 511: “within the canopy” or “within the first model layer”?
- L 531: “larger”
- L 535: notation on left hand side is sloppy
- Table 4/5: The explanation could be much clearer if total Ox budget is analyzed in addition
- L723: Does more NOx become NO2 matter through promoting NOx deposition, since NO2 deposits much more rapidly than NO?
Reference
Harman, I. N. and Finnigan, J. J.: A simple unified theory for flow in the canopy and roughness sublayer, Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 123, 339–363, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-006-9145-6, 2007.
Makar, P. A., Staebler, R. M., Akingunola, A., Zhang, J., McLinden, C., Kharol, S. K., Pabla, B., Cheung, P., and Zheng, Q.: The effects of forest canopy shading and turbulence on boundary layer ozone, Nat Commun, 8, 15243, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15243, 2017.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-485-RC1
Model code and software
GMU-SESS-AQ/CMAQ: GMU Canopy Tag for CMAQv5.3.1 Patrick Campbell et al. https://zenodo.org/records/14502375
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
144 | 38 | 8 | 190 | 14 | 4 | 7 |
- HTML: 144
- PDF: 38
- XML: 8
- Total: 190
- Supplement: 14
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1