Long-term measurements of NOx and O3 soil fluxes in a temperate deciduous forest

Fumagalli, I.; Gruening, Carsten; Marzuoli, Riccardo; Cieslik, S.; Gerosa, Giacomo

doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.07.011

Cited by 23 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a negative correlation between summertime cumulative precipitation and v d (Figure a; r = −0.55, p = 0.08), suggesting that the process or processes that controls the interannual variation in observed v d increases with decreases in water availability (e.g., soil water content and aridity). Because ozone dry deposition to soil decreases with soil moisture (Fares et al, ; Fumagalli et al, ; Massman, ; Stella et al, ), we first use v d modeling to explore whether this negative correlation stems from ozone dry deposition to soil. More specifically, we apply the Massman () nonstomatal deposition model (see Text S7 for details), which distinguishes deposition to wet versus dry soil.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, unambiguous attribution of variations in observed ozone pollution is challenging due to individual depositional processes potentially having similar or offsetting relationships with meteorology and/or biophysics. For example, on hourly to seasonal timescales, effective nonstomatal deposition pathways may change with some of the same environmental conditions that influence stomatal conductance, such as air temperature or solar radiation (Coe et al, 1995;Coyle et al, 2009;Fowler et al, 2001;Fumagalli et al, 2016;Hogg et al, 2007;Rondón et al, 1993), soil moisture (Fumagalli et al, 2016;Massman, 2004), and humidity (Stella et al, 2011;Sun, Moravek, Trebs, et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2002). Identifying the processes driving variability in the total observed ozone dry deposition through process modeling may bridge this gap and inform mechanistic modeling of surface ozone concentrations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatiotemporal Controls on Observed Daytime Ozone Deposition Velocity Over Northeastern U.S. Forests During Summer

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatiotemporal variability in ozone dry deposition is often overlooked despite its implications for interpreting and modeling tropospheric ozone concentrations accurately. Understanding the influences of stomatal versus nonstomatal deposition processes on ozone deposition velocity is important for attributing observed changes in the ozone depositional sink and associated damage to ecosystems. Here, we aim to identify the stomatal versus nonstomatal deposition processes driving observed variability in ozone deposition velocity over the northeastern United States during June–September. We use ozone eddy covariance measurements from Harvard Forest in Massachusetts, which span a decade, and from Kane Experimental Forest in Pennsylvania and Sand Flats State Forest in New York, which span one growing season each, along with observation‐driven modeling. Using a cumulative precipitation indicator of soil wetness, we infer that high soil uptake during dry years and low soil uptake during wet years may contribute to the twofold interannual variability in ozone deposition velocity at Harvard Forest. We link stomatal deposition and humidity to variability in ozone deposition velocity on daily timescales. The humidity dependence may reflect higher uptake by leaf cuticles under humid conditions, noted in previous work. Previous work also suggests that uptake by leaf cuticles may be enhanced after rain, but we find that increases in ozone deposition velocity on rainy days are instead mostly associated with increases in stomatal conductance. Our analysis highlights a need for constraints on subseasonal variability in ozone dry deposition to soil and fast in‐canopy chemistry during ecosystem stress.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal Controls on Observed Daytime Ozone Deposition Velocity Over Northeastern U.S. Forests During Summer

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Chamber methods are employed to isolate ozone uptake to foliage, soil, water, and other surfaces in the field (Almand-Hunter et al, 2015;Altimir et al, 2002;Fumagalli et al, 2016;Gut et al, 2002;Horváth et al, 2006;Kaplan et al, 1988;Kirkman et al, 2002;Meixner et al, 1997;Pilegaard, 2001;Remde et al, 1993;Tong et al, 2011;Unsworth et al, 1984;Wieser et al, 2012). However, previous work largely focuses on soil NO emissions (e.g., Gut et al, 2002;Horváth et al, 2006;Kaplan et al, 1988;Kirkman et al, 2002;Meixner et al, 1997;Remde et al, 1993) or plant responses to ozone (e.g., Tong et al, 2011;Wieser et al, 2012) rather than ozone deposition processes.…”

Section: Chamber Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence from eight field studies (Table 3), including one field chamber study (Fumagalli et al, 2016), and four laboratory-based studies (Aldaz, 1969…”

Section: Reviews Of Geophysicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dry Deposition of Ozone Over Land: Processes, Measurement, and Modeling

Clifton

Fiore

Massman

et al. 2020

Reviews of Geophysics

Self Cite

109

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dry deposition of ozone is an important sink of ozone in near‐surface air. When dry deposition occurs through plant stomata, ozone can injure the plant, altering water and carbon cycling and reducing crop yields. Quantifying both stomatal and nonstomatal uptake accurately is relevant for understanding ozone's impact on human health as an air pollutant and on climate as a potent short‐lived greenhouse gas and primary control on the removal of several reactive greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Robust ozone dry deposition estimates require knowledge of the relative importance of individual deposition pathways, but spatiotemporal variability in nonstomatal deposition is poorly understood. Here we integrate understanding of ozone deposition processes by synthesizing research from fields such as atmospheric chemistry, ecology, and meteorology. We critically review methods for measurements and modeling, highlighting the empiricism that underpins modeling and thus the interpretation of observations. Our unprecedented synthesis of knowledge on deposition pathways, particularly soil and leaf cuticles, reveals process understanding not yet included in widely used models. If coordinated with short‐term field intensives, laboratory studies, and mechanistic modeling, measurements from a few long‐term sites would bridge the molecular to ecosystem scales necessary to establish the relative importance of individual deposition pathways and the extent to which they vary in space and time. Our recommended approaches seek to close knowledge gaps that currently limit quantifying the impact of ozone dry deposition on air quality, ecosystems, and climate.

show abstract

“…Variability in nonstomatal deposition is poorly characterized [ Fowler et al ., ; Rannik et al ., ; Neirynck et al ., ]. Recent field‐based evidence suggests that nonstomatal processes include thermal decomposition and light‐mediated and aqueous chemical reactions on vegetation and soil [ Fowler et al ., ; Ganzeveld et al ., ; Fumagalli et al ., ]. If deposition is considered to include all of the processes leading to O 3 loss below the top of the canopy, then chemical reactions with biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) or nitrogen oxide (NO) in canopy air are nonstomatal pathways.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interannual variability in ozone removal by a temperate deciduous forest

Clifton

Fiore

Munger

et al. 2017

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ozone (O3) dry depositional sink and its contribution to observed variability in tropospheric O3 are both poorly understood. Distinguishing O3 uptake through plant stomata versus other pathways is relevant for quantifying the O3 influence on carbon and water cycles. We use a decade of O3, carbon, and energy eddy covariance (EC) fluxes at Harvard Forest to investigate interannual variability (IAV) in O3 deposition velocities ( vd,O3). In each month, monthly mean vd,O3 for the highest year is twice that for the lowest. Two independent stomatal conductance estimates, based on either water vapor EC or gross primary productivity, vary little from year to year relative to canopy conductance. We conclude that nonstomatal deposition controls the substantial observed IAV in summertime vd,O3 during the 1990s over this deciduous forest. The absence of obvious relationships between meteorology and vd,O3 implies a need for additional long‐term, high‐quality measurements and further investigation of nonstomatal mechanisms.

show abstract

Long-term measurements of NOx and O3 soil fluxes in a temperate deciduous forest

Cited by 23 publications

References 49 publications

Spatiotemporal Controls on Observed Daytime Ozone Deposition Velocity Over Northeastern U.S. Forests During Summer

Spatiotemporal Controls on Observed Daytime Ozone Deposition Velocity Over Northeastern U.S. Forests During Summer

Dry Deposition of Ozone Over Land: Processes, Measurement, and Modeling

Interannual variability in ozone removal by a temperate deciduous forest

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About