TY - JOUR

T1 - Global terrestrial isoprene emission models: sensitivity to variability in climate and vegetation

AU - Arneth, A.

AU - Schurgers, G.

AU - Lathiere, J.

AU - Duhl, T.

AU - Beerling, D. J.

AU - Hewitt, C. N.

AU - Martin, M.

AU - Guenther, A.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Due to its effects on the atmospheric lifetime of methane, the burdens of tropospheric ozone and growth of secondary organic aerosol, isoprene is central among the biogenic compounds that need to be taken into account for assessment of anthropogenic air pollution-climate change interactions. Lack of process-understanding regarding leaf isoprene production as well as of suitable observations to constrain and evaluate regional or global simulation results add large uncertainties to past, present and future emissions estimates. Focusing on contemporary climate conditions, we compare three global isoprene models that differ in their representation of vegetation and isoprene emission algorithm. We specifically aim to investigate the between-and within model variation that is introduced by varying some of the models' main features, and to determine which spatial and/or temporal features are robust between models and different experimental set-ups. In their individual standard configurations, the models broadly agree with respect to the chief isoprene sources and emission seasonality, with maximum monthly emission rates around 20-25 Tg C, when averaged by 30-degree latitudinal bands. They also indicate relatively small (approximately 5 to 10% around the mean) interannual variability of total global emissions. The models are sensitive to changes in one or more of their main model components and drivers (e. g., underlying vegetation fields, climate input) which can yield increases or decreases in total annual emissions of cumulatively by more than 30 %. Varying drivers also strongly alters the seasonal emission pattern. The variable response needs to be interpreted in view of the vegetation emission capacities, as well as diverging absolute and regional distribution of light, radiation and temperature, but the direction of the simulated emission changes was not as uniform as anticipated. Our results highlight the need for modellers to evaluate their implementations of isoprene emission models carefully when performing simulations that use nonstandard emission model configurations.

AB - Due to its effects on the atmospheric lifetime of methane, the burdens of tropospheric ozone and growth of secondary organic aerosol, isoprene is central among the biogenic compounds that need to be taken into account for assessment of anthropogenic air pollution-climate change interactions. Lack of process-understanding regarding leaf isoprene production as well as of suitable observations to constrain and evaluate regional or global simulation results add large uncertainties to past, present and future emissions estimates. Focusing on contemporary climate conditions, we compare three global isoprene models that differ in their representation of vegetation and isoprene emission algorithm. We specifically aim to investigate the between-and within model variation that is introduced by varying some of the models' main features, and to determine which spatial and/or temporal features are robust between models and different experimental set-ups. In their individual standard configurations, the models broadly agree with respect to the chief isoprene sources and emission seasonality, with maximum monthly emission rates around 20-25 Tg C, when averaged by 30-degree latitudinal bands. They also indicate relatively small (approximately 5 to 10% around the mean) interannual variability of total global emissions. The models are sensitive to changes in one or more of their main model components and drivers (e. g., underlying vegetation fields, climate input) which can yield increases or decreases in total annual emissions of cumulatively by more than 30 %. Varying drivers also strongly alters the seasonal emission pattern. The variable response needs to be interpreted in view of the vegetation emission capacities, as well as diverging absolute and regional distribution of light, radiation and temperature, but the direction of the simulated emission changes was not as uniform as anticipated. Our results highlight the need for modellers to evaluate their implementations of isoprene emission models carefully when performing simulations that use nonstandard emission model configurations.

KW - ORGANIC-COMPOUND EMISSIONS

KW - AMAZON RAIN-FORESTS

KW - ATMOSPHERIC CO2

KW - CARBON-DIOXIDE

KW - ELEVATED CO2

KW - NONMETHANE HYDROCARBONS

KW - TROPICAL FOREST

KW - LEAF-AREA

KW - ECOSYSTEM

KW - IMPACT

U2 - 10.5194/acp-11-8037-2011

DO - 10.5194/acp-11-8037-2011

M3 - Journal article

VL - 11

SP - 8037

EP - 8052

JO - Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

JF - Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

SN - 1680-7316

IS - 15

ER -