Why are estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions so similar (and why is this not so for monoterpenes)?

A. Arneth, Russell Monson, G. Schurgers, Ü Niinemets, P. I. Palmer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

182 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC) are a chief uncertainty in calculating the burdens of important atmospheric compounds like tropospheric ozone or secondary organic aerosol, reflecting either imperfect chemical oxidation mechanisms or unreliable emission estimates, or both. To provide a starting point for a more systematic discussion we review here global isoprene and monoterpene emission estimates to-date. We note a surprisingly small variation in the predictions of global isoprene emission rate that is in stark contrast with our lack of process understanding and the small number of observations for model parameterisation and evaluation. Most of the models are based on similar emission algorithms, using fixed values for the emission capacity of various plant functional types. In some cases, these values are very similar but differ substantially in other models. The similarities with regard to the global isoprene emission rate would suggest that the dominant parameters driving the ultimate global estimate, and thus the dominant determinant of model sensitivity, are the specific emission algorithm and isoprene emission capacity. But the models also differ broadly with regard to their representation of net primary productivity, method of biome coverage determination and climate data. Contrary to isoprene, monoterpene estimates show significantly larger model-to-model variation although variation in terms of leaf algorithm, emission capacities, the way of model upscaling, vegetation cover or climatology used in terpene models are comparable to those used for isoprene. From our summary of published studies there appears to be no evidence that the terrestrial modelling community has been any more successful in "resolving unknowns" in the mechanisms that control global isoprene emissions, compared to global monoterpene emissions. Rather, the proliferation of common parameterization schemes within a large variety of model platforms lends the illusion of convergence towards a common estimate of global isoprene emissions. This convergence might be used to provide optimism that the community has reached the "relief phase", the phase when sufficient process understanding and data for evaluation allows models' projections to converge, when applying a recently proposed concept. We argue that there is no basis for this apparent relief phase. Rather, we urge modellers to be bolder in their analysis, and to draw attention to the fact that terrestrial emissions, particularly in the area of biome-specific emission capacities, are unknown rather than uncertain.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4605-4620
Number of pages16
JournalAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Volume8
Issue number16
StatePublished - Aug 5 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

monoterpene
isoprene
biome
parameterization
relief
terpene
upscaling
vegetation cover
climatology
volatile organic compound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Atmospheric Science

Cite this

Why are estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions so similar (and why is this not so for monoterpenes)? / Arneth, A.; Monson, Russell; Schurgers, G.; Niinemets, Ü; Palmer, P. I.

In: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 8, No. 16, 05.08.2008, p. 4605-4620.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5ae4846cac1847bda3f921660cfbbf17,
title = "Why are estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions so similar (and why is this not so for monoterpenes)?",
abstract = "Emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC) are a chief uncertainty in calculating the burdens of important atmospheric compounds like tropospheric ozone or secondary organic aerosol, reflecting either imperfect chemical oxidation mechanisms or unreliable emission estimates, or both. To provide a starting point for a more systematic discussion we review here global isoprene and monoterpene emission estimates to-date. We note a surprisingly small variation in the predictions of global isoprene emission rate that is in stark contrast with our lack of process understanding and the small number of observations for model parameterisation and evaluation. Most of the models are based on similar emission algorithms, using fixed values for the emission capacity of various plant functional types. In some cases, these values are very similar but differ substantially in other models. The similarities with regard to the global isoprene emission rate would suggest that the dominant parameters driving the ultimate global estimate, and thus the dominant determinant of model sensitivity, are the specific emission algorithm and isoprene emission capacity. But the models also differ broadly with regard to their representation of net primary productivity, method of biome coverage determination and climate data. Contrary to isoprene, monoterpene estimates show significantly larger model-to-model variation although variation in terms of leaf algorithm, emission capacities, the way of model upscaling, vegetation cover or climatology used in terpene models are comparable to those used for isoprene. From our summary of published studies there appears to be no evidence that the terrestrial modelling community has been any more successful in {"}resolving unknowns{"} in the mechanisms that control global isoprene emissions, compared to global monoterpene emissions. Rather, the proliferation of common parameterization schemes within a large variety of model platforms lends the illusion of convergence towards a common estimate of global isoprene emissions. This convergence might be used to provide optimism that the community has reached the {"}relief phase{"}, the phase when sufficient process understanding and data for evaluation allows models' projections to converge, when applying a recently proposed concept. We argue that there is no basis for this apparent relief phase. Rather, we urge modellers to be bolder in their analysis, and to draw attention to the fact that terrestrial emissions, particularly in the area of biome-specific emission capacities, are unknown rather than uncertain.",
author = "A. Arneth and Russell Monson and G. Schurgers and {\"U} Niinemets and Palmer, {P. I.}",
year = "2008",
month = "8",
day = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "4605--4620",
journal = "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics",
issn = "1680-7316",
publisher = "European Geosciences Union",
number = "16",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why are estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions so similar (and why is this not so for monoterpenes)?

AU - Arneth, A.

AU - Monson, Russell

AU - Schurgers, G.

AU - Niinemets, Ü

AU - Palmer, P. I.

PY - 2008/8/5

Y1 - 2008/8/5

N2 - Emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC) are a chief uncertainty in calculating the burdens of important atmospheric compounds like tropospheric ozone or secondary organic aerosol, reflecting either imperfect chemical oxidation mechanisms or unreliable emission estimates, or both. To provide a starting point for a more systematic discussion we review here global isoprene and monoterpene emission estimates to-date. We note a surprisingly small variation in the predictions of global isoprene emission rate that is in stark contrast with our lack of process understanding and the small number of observations for model parameterisation and evaluation. Most of the models are based on similar emission algorithms, using fixed values for the emission capacity of various plant functional types. In some cases, these values are very similar but differ substantially in other models. The similarities with regard to the global isoprene emission rate would suggest that the dominant parameters driving the ultimate global estimate, and thus the dominant determinant of model sensitivity, are the specific emission algorithm and isoprene emission capacity. But the models also differ broadly with regard to their representation of net primary productivity, method of biome coverage determination and climate data. Contrary to isoprene, monoterpene estimates show significantly larger model-to-model variation although variation in terms of leaf algorithm, emission capacities, the way of model upscaling, vegetation cover or climatology used in terpene models are comparable to those used for isoprene. From our summary of published studies there appears to be no evidence that the terrestrial modelling community has been any more successful in "resolving unknowns" in the mechanisms that control global isoprene emissions, compared to global monoterpene emissions. Rather, the proliferation of common parameterization schemes within a large variety of model platforms lends the illusion of convergence towards a common estimate of global isoprene emissions. This convergence might be used to provide optimism that the community has reached the "relief phase", the phase when sufficient process understanding and data for evaluation allows models' projections to converge, when applying a recently proposed concept. We argue that there is no basis for this apparent relief phase. Rather, we urge modellers to be bolder in their analysis, and to draw attention to the fact that terrestrial emissions, particularly in the area of biome-specific emission capacities, are unknown rather than uncertain.

AB - Emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC) are a chief uncertainty in calculating the burdens of important atmospheric compounds like tropospheric ozone or secondary organic aerosol, reflecting either imperfect chemical oxidation mechanisms or unreliable emission estimates, or both. To provide a starting point for a more systematic discussion we review here global isoprene and monoterpene emission estimates to-date. We note a surprisingly small variation in the predictions of global isoprene emission rate that is in stark contrast with our lack of process understanding and the small number of observations for model parameterisation and evaluation. Most of the models are based on similar emission algorithms, using fixed values for the emission capacity of various plant functional types. In some cases, these values are very similar but differ substantially in other models. The similarities with regard to the global isoprene emission rate would suggest that the dominant parameters driving the ultimate global estimate, and thus the dominant determinant of model sensitivity, are the specific emission algorithm and isoprene emission capacity. But the models also differ broadly with regard to their representation of net primary productivity, method of biome coverage determination and climate data. Contrary to isoprene, monoterpene estimates show significantly larger model-to-model variation although variation in terms of leaf algorithm, emission capacities, the way of model upscaling, vegetation cover or climatology used in terpene models are comparable to those used for isoprene. From our summary of published studies there appears to be no evidence that the terrestrial modelling community has been any more successful in "resolving unknowns" in the mechanisms that control global isoprene emissions, compared to global monoterpene emissions. Rather, the proliferation of common parameterization schemes within a large variety of model platforms lends the illusion of convergence towards a common estimate of global isoprene emissions. This convergence might be used to provide optimism that the community has reached the "relief phase", the phase when sufficient process understanding and data for evaluation allows models' projections to converge, when applying a recently proposed concept. We argue that there is no basis for this apparent relief phase. Rather, we urge modellers to be bolder in their analysis, and to draw attention to the fact that terrestrial emissions, particularly in the area of biome-specific emission capacities, are unknown rather than uncertain.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=49549092952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=49549092952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 4605

EP - 4620

JO - Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

JF - Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

SN - 1680-7316

IS - 16

ER -