guest ::
| Home > Publications database > The leaf-level emission factor of volatile isoprenoids: caveats, model algorithms, response shapes and scaling |
| Home > Publications database > The leaf-level emission factor of volatile isoprenoids: caveats, model algorithms, response shapes and scaling |
| Journal Article | PreJuSER-13371 |
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
2010
Copernicus
Katlenburg-Lindau [u.a.]
This record in other databases: 
Please use a persistent id in citations: http://hdl.handle.net/2128/20931 doi:10.5194/bg-7-1809-2010
Abstract: In models of plant volatile isoprenoid emissions, the instantaneous compound emission rate typically scales with the plant's emission potential under specified environmental conditions, also called as the emission factor, E-S. In the most widely employed plant isoprenoid emission models, the algorithms developed by Guenther and colleagues (1991, 1993), instantaneous variation of the steady-state emission rate is described as the product of E-S and light and temperature response functions. When these models are employed in the atmospheric chemistry modeling community, species-specific E-S values and parameter values defining the instantaneous response curves are often taken as initially defined. In the current review, we argue that E-S as a characteristic used in the models importantly depends on our understanding of which environmental factors affect isoprenoid emissions, and consequently need standardization during experimental E-S determinations. In particular, there is now increasing consensus that in addition to variations in light and temperature, alterations in atmospheric and/or within-leaf CO2 concentrations may need to be included in the emission models. Furthermore, we demonstrate that for less volatile isoprenoids, mono- and sesquiterpenes, the emissions are often jointly controlled by the compound synthesis and volatility. Because of these combined biochemical and physico-chemical drivers, specification of E-S as a constant value is incapable of describing instantaneous emissions within the sole assumptions of fluctuating light and temperature as used in the standard algorithms. The definition of E-S also varies depending on the degree of aggregation of E-S values in different parameterization schemes (leaf- vs. canopy- or region-scale, species vs. plant functional type levels) and various aggregated E-S schemes are not compatible for different integration models. The summarized information collectively emphasizes the need to update model algorithms by including missing environmental and physico-chemical controls, and always to define E-S within the proper context of model structure and spatial and temporal resolution.
Keyword(s): J
; 
|
The record appears in these collections: |
PDF
PDF (PDFA)