Carbonyl sulfide: comparing a mechanistic representation of the vegetation uptake in a land surface model and the leaf relative uptake approach
-
Published:2021-05-12
Issue:9
Volume:18
Page:2917-2955
-
ISSN:1726-4189
-
Container-title:Biogeosciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Biogeosciences
Author:
Maignan FabienneORCID, Abadie Camille, Remaud MarineORCID, Kooijmans Linda M. J.ORCID, Kohonen Kukka-MaariaORCID, Commane RóisínORCID, Wehr RichardORCID, Campbell J. Elliott, Belviso SauveurORCID, Montzka Stephen A.ORCID, Raoult Nina, Seibt UlliORCID, Shiga Yoichi P.ORCID, Vuichard Nicolas, Whelan Mary E.ORCID, Peylin Philippe
Abstract
Abstract. Land surface modellers need measurable proxies to
constrain the quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) assimilated by
continental plants through photosynthesis, known as gross primary production
(GPP). Carbonyl sulfide (COS), which is taken up by leaves through their
stomates and then hydrolysed by photosynthetic enzymes, is a candidate GPP
proxy. A former study with the ORCHIDEE land surface model used a fixed
ratio of COS uptake to CO2 uptake normalised to respective ambient
concentrations for each vegetation type (leaf relative uptake, LRU) to
compute vegetation COS fluxes from GPP. The LRU approach is known to have
limited accuracy since the LRU ratio changes with variables such as
photosynthetically active radiation (PAR): while CO2 uptake slows under
low light, COS uptake is not light limited. However, the LRU approach has
been popular for COS–GPP proxy studies because of its ease of application
and apparent low contribution to uncertainty for regional-scale
applications. In this study we refined the COS–GPP relationship and
implemented in ORCHIDEE a mechanistic model that describes COS uptake by
continental vegetation. We compared the simulated COS fluxes against
measured hourly COS fluxes at two sites and studied the model behaviour and
links with environmental drivers. We performed simulations at a global scale,
and we estimated the global COS uptake by vegetation to be −756 Gg S yr−1,
in the middle range of former studies (−490 to −1335 Gg S yr−1). Based
on monthly mean fluxes simulated by the mechanistic approach in ORCHIDEE, we
derived new LRU values for the different vegetation types, ranging between
0.92 and 1.72, close to recently published averages for observed values of
1.21 for C4 and 1.68 for C3 plants. We transported the COS using the monthly
vegetation COS fluxes derived from both the mechanistic and the LRU
approaches, and we evaluated the simulated COS concentrations at NOAA sites.
Although the mechanistic approach was more appropriate when comparing to
high-temporal-resolution COS flux measurements, both approaches gave similar
results when transporting with monthly COS fluxes and evaluating COS
concentrations at stations. In our study, uncertainties between these two
approaches are of secondary importance compared to the uncertainties in the
COS global budget, which are currently a limiting factor to the potential of
COS concentrations to constrain GPP simulated by land surface models on the
global scale.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
Earth-Surface Processes,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference117 articles.
1. Allen, M., Babiker, M., Chen, Y., Taylor, M., Tschakert Australia, P.,
Waisman, H., Warren, R., Zhai, P., Zickfeld, K., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.,
Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan,
C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.,
Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M., and Waterfield, T.: IPCCC 1.5C: Summary
for Policymakers, Aromar Revi, available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf (last access: 19 April 2021), 2018. 2. Anav, A., Friedlingstein, P., Beer, C., Ciais, P., Harper, A., Jones, C.,
Murray-Tortarolo, G., Papale, D., Parazoo, N. C., Peylin, P., Piao, S.,
Sitch, S., Viovy, N., Wiltshire, A., and Zhao, M.: Spatiotemporal patterns of
terrestrial gross primary production: A review, Rev. Geophys., 53,
785–818, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000483, 2015. 3. Bacour, C., Maignan, F., MacBean, N., Porcar-Castell, A., Flexas, J.,
Frankenberg, C., Peylin, P., Chevallier, F., Vuichard, N., and Bastrikov, V.:
Improving Estimates of Gross Primary Productivity by Assimilating
Solar-Induced Fluorescence Satellite Retrievals in a Terrestrial Biosphere
Model Using a Process-Based SIF Model, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo.,
124, 3281–3306, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JG005040, 2019. 4. Badger, M. R. and Price, G. D.: The Role of Carbonic Anhydrase in Photosynthesis, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 45, 369–392, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.45.060194.002101, 1994. 5. Ball, J. T., Woodrow, I. E., and Berry, J. A.: A Model Predicting Stomatal
Conductance and its Contribution to the Control of Photosynthesis under
Different Environmental Conditions, in: Progress in Photosynthesis Research,
Springer, The Netherlands, 221–224, 1987.
Cited by
25 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|