the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Species-explicit inventory of forest biogenic volatile organic emissions across China with MEGAN v3.2
Abstract. Biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) are important precursors of secondary organic aerosols and tropospheric ozone, yet their emissions are commonly modelled at the plant functional type (PFT) level, which obscures substantial interspecies variability. This limitation is particularly acute for China, where high forest diversity and ambitious afforestation initiatives are expected to reshape national BVOC budgets. Here, we present a species-explicit BVOC emissions inventory for China covering 234 tree species (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20396128, Liu et al., 2026). The inventory was developed within the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN) v3.2 modeling framework, with refined inputs comprising species-specific emission factors and high-resolution forest composition data for China. Total forest BVOC emissions were estimated at 10.26 Tg in 2019, with summer emissions accounting for about 50 % of the annual total and a clear decreasing gradient from southern to northern China. Emissions were highly concentrated among a limited number of species: the five largest contributors, Pinus massoniana, Quercus liaotungensis, Phyllostachys edulis, Cunninghamia lanceolata, and Quercus variabilis accounted for 41.7 % of total emissions while occupying only 25.4 % of forest area. At the compound-class level, Quercus liaotungensis dominated isoprene emissions, whereas Pinus massoniana was the leading contributor to monoterpene emissions. Applying this species-explicit framework to two future afforestation scenarios with identical planted areas but contrasting species composition, we found that BVOC emissions may increase by 4.65 Tg yr⁻¹ with the biomass-maximization tree species and by 5.10 Tg yr⁻¹ under the most environmental-suitability species. The dominant compound class and species contributors differed markedly between scenarios, indicating that afforestation-driven BVOC responses depend strongly on species selection. These results demonstrate the importance of incorporating species-specific emission traits BVOC models and suggest that future afforestation strategies could substantially reshape both the magnitude and chemical composition of biogenic emissions, with implications for atmospheric chemistry and air quality.
- Preprint
(2364 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Sep 2026)
- CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3708', Astrid Kerkweg, 17 Jul 2026 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3708', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jul 2026
reply
This study presents an impressive dataset applicable for BVOC emissions modeling in China, providing estimates of tree species distribution maps, emission factor database along with improvements in LAI and land cover classification over China. The Appendix provides the EF’s for isoprene and monoterpenes, while the associated Zenodo archive provides estimates of total BVOC emissions at grid box level. Some evaluation is provided by intercomparing emission isoprene emission fluxes at available measurement sites, as well as SOA concentrations. The isoprene emission totals are put into perspective by comparing them with literature values.
While this manuscript is very valuable, and provides important input to the discussion of impact of different vegetation on the BVOC emissions in different scenarios, and to the science community by providing a compilation of EF’s, still some aspects can be improved.
The evaluation section should be strengthened by giving more emphasis to the isoprene flux evaluation, which is the primary means of evaluation of the improvement obtained here. Presentation of the evaluation results in the Table should be promoted to the primary text rather than the Appendix.
Contrary, the evaluation against SOA observations should either be strengthened as well, either by presenting, analyzing and intercomparing the results from different emission scenarios, and better understanding and interpretation of the observations and modeling errors, or alternatively giving this less weight by moving the results to the appendix.
Also, while the authors present EF’s for isoprene and monoterpenes, they ignore the presentation of EF’s for other types (sesquiterpenes, and other BVOC’s), while they still report on their overall magnitude. Also sesquiterpenes are considered important for SOA formation. Therefore it is not traceable how they obtain the EF’s for these values; please provide more details on this aspect here.
More generally, it would help in the judgement if the authors provide traceability as to how all the numbers (EF’s) are derived, either by providing a reference (citation) of one of the 184 peer-reviewed studies, or by an alternative datasource.
Likewise, one of the main outcomes of this study is a gridded dataset of forest tree species distribution. Yet this dataset appears not available through Zenodo. Also the actual MEGAN code, used to ingest this dataset, and convert this to emissions, is not shared in the Zenodo archive. I understand this is a requirement of GMD, following also the Executive Editor comment.
Detailed comments:
Line 388: Table C3 is briefly introduced and discussed. But this table is put together rather superficially, while it contains key information regarding the fidelity of the model and its improvements. Therefore I recommend to put more emphasis on this evaluation aspects. For instance, the table caption appears incomplete, not properly describing what is in the Table. (Missing units). It would additionally help to get information on the absolute average emissions from the observation, to judge if the mean bias / RMSE numbers are significant.
On linke 386 the description of the performance at LA is incomplete and should be checked more carefully. The improvement in performance is only seen for monoterpenes and not for isoprene. Then this table may be promoted to the main text rather than given in the appendix.
Likewise, Sec. 3.2 provides an assessment of SOA, which is a derivative of the alternating BVOC trace gas emissions, associated to many uncertainties. Currently it only reports on the quality of simulation Exist-SPE, but it would be logical to also discuss the other experiments, as done for the BVOC emissions. A closer assessment of these evaluations would be welcome, e.g. selecting only observations and time periods that are known to be affected by SOA from BVOC would be advised. Otherwise, this evaluation is not really informative, and could/should be left to the appendix instead.
On line 427 the authors report on sesquiterpenes emissions, as well as other VOC species. It is actually unclear to me how these numbers are derived, given that no species-specific information for other species than isoprene and monoterpenes is provided - do the authors use reference EFs from MEGANv3.2 for these?
Finally, in all figures showing maps of China, please exclude the inset with the wider area over the seas south of China mainland: This does not contain any information that is relevant to this work on forest emissions - at least it is not visible due to the small size, and only distracts the reader.
technical comments
Line 36: “1000 Tg of reactive carbon” …, change to “1000 Tg of trace gases containing reactive carbon” … ?
Line 79: please spell out (explain) the units once. Especially I’m unfamiliar with the ‘gdw’ unit.
Line 330: “simulate SOA”: change to: “simulate tropospheric chemistry and aerosol, including BVOCs and SOA” ?
Line 472: ‘Exist-PEC’ => ‘Exist-SPE’
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3708-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3708', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jul 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3708/egusphere-2026-3708-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3708', Anonymous Referee #3, 29 Jul 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3708/egusphere-2026-3708-RC3-supplement.pdf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 158 | 59 | 11 | 228 | 8 | 13 |
- HTML: 158
- PDF: 59
- XML: 11
- Total: 228
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
although you provide the reference to a zenodo archive for the MEGAN code, I do not find a code availability section. Please add this before or after the data availability section in you article.
Best regards,
Astrid Kerkweg (GMD Executive Editor)