Comparison of different stomatal conductance algorithms for ozone flux modelling

P. Büker, L.D. Emberson, M.R. Ashmore, G. Gerosa, C.M.J. Jacobs, W.J. Massman, J. Müller, N. Nikolov, K. Novak, E. Oksanen, D. de la Torre, J.P. Tuovinen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A multiplicative and a semi-mechanistic, BWB-type [Ball, J.T., Woodrow, I.E., Berry, J.A., 1987. A model predicting stomatal conductance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under different environmental conditions. In: Biggens, J. (Ed.), Progress in Photosynthesis Research, vol. IV. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp. 221e224.] algorithm for calculating stomatal conductance (gs) at the leaf level have been parameterised for two crop and two tree species to test their use in regional scale ozone deposition modelling. The algorithms were tested against measured, site-specific data for durum wheat, grapevine, beech and birch of different European provenances. A direct comparison of both algorithms showed a similar performance in predicting hourly means and daily time-courses of gs, whereas the multiplicative algorithm outperformed the BWB-type algorithm in modelling seasonal time-courses due to the inclusion of a phenology function. The re-parameterisation of the algorithms for local conditions in order to validate ozone deposition modelling on a European scale reveals the higher input requirements of the BWB-type algorithm as compared to the multiplicative algorithm because of the need of the former to model net photosynthesis (An).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)726-735
JournalEnvironmental Pollution
Volume146
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007

Keywords

  • h2o gas-exchange
  • photosynthesis model
  • carbon-dioxide
  • c-3 plants
  • water
  • vegetation
  • co2
  • assimilation
  • ecosystems
  • atmosphere

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of different stomatal conductance algorithms for ozone flux modelling'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this