Download PDF

Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 137, Issue 2, pp 271–290 | Cite as

Evaluating a New Deposition Velocity Module in the Noah Land-Surface Model

  • U. Charusombat
  • D. Niyogi
  • A. Kumar
  • X. Wang
  • F. Chen
  • A. Guenther
  • A. Turnipseed
  • K. Alapaty
Open Access
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The community Noah land-surface model (Noah LSM) has been modified to couple with a photosynthesis-transpiration scheme (GEM) to estimate the deposition velocity (V d ) for air quality studies. This new capability of the Noah-GEM model was tested in a point version of the National Center for Atmospheric Research-High Resolution Land Data Assimilation System (HRLDAS). Ozone V d observations from June 1–30, 2002 over the AmeriFlux forested site located at Niwot Ridge, Colorado, USA (40°1′58′′N;105°32′47′′W) were used. The model reasonably captures V d variations for both dry and wet conditions but has problems at nighttime. Experiments were performed to assess the sensitivity of V d calculations to surface characteristics related to vegetation and soil parameters. The results indicated that V d values are sensitive to accurate specifications of the leaf area index (LAI) and a lesser extent to vegetation type, maximum stomatal resistance (R smax ) and soil texture prescription. The model sensitivity to canopy resistance was noted for both daytime and nighttime. For this forest site, neither soil textures nor soil moisture appeared to affect V d calculations significantly, though they affected the surface heat-flux estimation particularly under low soil moisture conditions. Therefore, the V d estimation in the Noah model can be enhanced by either site-specific LAI or assimilating regional normal difference vegetation index information for specific time periods. Results also highlighted the need to lower the current constant R smax value used in Noah and other land-surface models.

Keywords

Air quality Deposition velocity Land data assimilation system Noah land-surface model 
Download to read the full article text

References

  1. Alfieri JG, Niyogi D, Blanken PD, Chen F, LeMone MA, Mitchell KE, Ek MB, Kumar A (2008) Estimation of the minimum canopy resistance for croplands and grasslands using data from the 2002 International H2O Project. Mon Weather Rev 136: 4452–4469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldocchi DD, Hicks BB, Camara P (1987) A canopy stomatal resistance model for gaseous deposition to vegetated surfaces. Atmos Environ 21: 91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball J, Woodrow I, Berry J (1987) A model predicting stomatal conductance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under different environmental conditions. Prog Photosynth Res 4: 221–224Google Scholar
  4. Betts R, Cox P, Lee S, Woodward F (1997) Constrating physiological and structural vegetation feedbacks in climate change simulations. Nature 387: 796–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bucci SJ, Scholz FG, Goldstein G, Meinzer FC, Sternberg LSL (2003) Dynamic changes in hydraulic conductivity in petioles of two savanna tree species: factors and mechanisms contributing to the refilling of embolized vessels. Plant Cell Environ 26: 1633–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavender-Bare J, Sack L, Savage J (2007) Atmospheric and soil drought reduce nocturnal conductance in live oaks. Tree Physiol 27: 611–620Google Scholar
  7. Chen F, Dudhia J (2001) Coupling an advanced land surface–hydrology model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 modelling system. Part I: model implementation and sensitivity. Mon Weather Rev 129: 569–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen F, Mitchell K, Schaake J, Xue Y, Pan H, Koren V, Duan Y, Ek M, Betts A (1996) Modelling of land- surface evaporation by four schemes and comparison with FIFE observations. J Geophys Res 101: 7251–7268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen F, Manning KW, LeMone MA, Trier SB, Alfieri JG, Roberts R, Tewari M, Niyogi D, Horst TW, Oncley SP, Basara JB, Blanken PD (2007) Description and evaluation of the characteristics of the NCAR high-resolution land data assimilation system. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46: 694–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooter EJ, Schwede D (2000) Sensitivity of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration multiplayer model to instrument error and parameterization uncertainty. J Geophys Res 105: 6695–6704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daley MJ, Phillips NG (2006) Interspecific variation in nighttime transpiration and stomatal conductance in a mixed New England deciduous forest. Tree Physiol 26: 411–419Google Scholar
  12. Ek MB, Mitchell KE, Lin Y, Rogers E, Grunmann P, Koren V, Gayno G, Tarpley JD (2003) Implementation of Noah land surface model advances in the national centers for environmental prediction operational mesoscale eta model. J Geophys Res 108: 8851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erisman JW, van Pul A, Wyers P (1994) Parameterization of surface resistance for the quantification of atmospheric deposition of acidifying pollutants and ozone. Atmos Environ 28: 2595–2607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finkelstein PL, Ellestad TG, Clarke JF, Meyers TP, Schwede DB, Hebert EO, Neal JA (2000) Ozone and sulfur dioxide dry deposition to forests: observations and model evaluation. J Geophys Res 105: 365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher JB, Baldocchi DD, Mission L, Dawson TE, Goldstein AH (2007) What the towers don’t see at night: nocturnal sap flow in trees and shrubs at two AmeriFlux sites in California. Tree Physiol 27: 597–610Google Scholar
  16. Fulton RA, Breidenbach JP, Seo DJ, Miller DA, Bannon TO (1998) The WSR-88D rainfall algorithm. Weather Forecast 13: 377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garland JA, Atkins DHF, Readings CJ, Caughey SJ (1974) Deposition of sulphur dioxide to the ground. Atmos Environ 8: 75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grell AG, Peckham SE, Schmitz R, McKeen SA, Frost G, Skamarock WC, Eder B (2005) Fully coupled “Online” Chemistry within the WRF model. Atmos Environ 39: 6957–6975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haaland PD (1989) Experimental design in biotechnology. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 105 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Hicks BB, Baldocchi DD, Hosher RP, Hutchison BA, Matt Dr, McMillen RT, Satterfield LC (1985) On the use of monitor air concentrations to infer dry deposition. NOAA technical memorandum ERLO ARLZ141, 65 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Hicks BB, Baldocchi DD, Meyers TP, Hosker RP, Matt DR (1987) A preliminary multiple resistance routine for deriving dry deposition velocities from measurement quantities. Water Air Soil Pollut 36: 311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kavanagh KL, Pangle R, Schotzko A (2007) Nocturnal transpiration causing disequilibrium between soil and stem predawn water potential in mixed conifer forests of Idaho. Tree Physiol 27: 621–629Google Scholar
  23. Kumar A, Chen F, Niyogi D, Manning K, Mitchell K, Ek M, Alfieri JG (2008) Integrating a photosynthesis-based canopy resistance model and satellite data in Noah land surface model. AMS. http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131425.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2008
  24. Lamaud E, Carrara A, Brunet Y, Lopez A, Druilhet A (2002) Ozone fluxes above and within a pine forest canopy in dry and wet conditions. Atmos Environ 36: 77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lui S, Mao D, Jia L (2007) Evaluating parameterizations of aerodynamic resistance to heat transfer using field measurements. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11: 769–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mairgareth AC, Richards JH, Donovan LA (2007) Conductance and transpiration in C3 and C4 plants. Plant Physiol 143: 4–10Google Scholar
  27. Meyers TP, Finkelstein P, Clarke J, Ellestad TG, Sims PF (1998) A multilayer model for inferring dry deposition using standard meteorological measurements. J Geophys Res 103: 645–661Google Scholar
  28. Muller JF, Stavrakou T, Wallens S, Smedt ID, Roozendael MV, Potosnak MJ, Rinne J, Munger A, Goldstein A, Guenther AB (2008) Global isoprene emissions estimated using MEGAN, ECMWF analyses and a detailed canopy environment model. Atmos Chem Phys 8: 1329–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Musselman CR, Minnick TJ (2000) Nocturnal stomata conductance and ambient air quality standards for ozone. Atmos Environ 34: 719–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nikolov N, Massman W, Schoettle A (1995) Coupling biochemical and biophysical processes at the leaf level: an equilibrium photosynthesis model for leaves of C3 plants. Ecol Model 80: 205–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Niyogi D, Raman S (1997) Comparison of four different stomatal resistance schemes using FIFE observations. J Appl Meteorol 36: 903–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Niyogi D, Xue YK (2006) Soil moisture regulates the biological response of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations in a coupled atmosphere biosphere model. Glob Planet Chan 54: 94–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Niyogi D, Raman S, Alapaty K (1999) Uncertainty in specification of surface characteristics, part 2: hierarchy of interaction explicit statistical analysis. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 91: 341–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Niyogi D, Raman S, Alapaty K (2003) A photosynthesis-based dry deposition modelling approach. Water Air Soil Pollut 144: 171–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Niyogi D, Alapaty K, Phillips S, Aneja V (2006) Considering ecological formulations for estimating deposition velocity in air quality models. Int J Glob Environ 6: 270–284Google Scholar
  36. Niyogi D, Alapaty K, Raman S, Chen F (2009) Development and evaluation of a coupled photosynthesis-based gas exchange evapotranspiration model (GEM) for mesoscale weather forecasting applications. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48: 349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Noilhan J, Planton S (1989) A simple parameterization of land surface processes for meteorological models. Mon Weather Rev 117: 536–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pleim JE, Xiu A (1995) Development and testing of a surface flux planertary boundary layer model with explicit soil moisture parameterization for applications in mesoscale models. J Appl Meteorol 34: 16–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pleim JE, Finkelstein PL, Clarke JF, Ellestad TG (1999) A technique for estimating dry deposition velocities based on similarity with latent heat flux. Atmos Environ 33: 2257–2268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pleim JE, Xiu A, Finkelstein PL, Otte TL (2001) A coupled land-surface and dry deposition model and comparison to field measurements of surface heat, moisture, and ozone fluxes. Water Air Soil Pollut 1: 243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Snyder KA, Richards JH, Donovan LA (2003) Night-time conductance in C3 and C4 species: do plants lose water at night?. J Exp Bot 54: 861–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Turnipseed AA, Anderson DE, Blanken PD, Baugh WM, Monson RK (2003) Airflows and turbulent flux measurements in mountainous terrain: part 1 canopy and local effects. Agric For Meteorol 119: 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turnipseed AA, Huey LG, Nemitz E, Stickel R, Higgs J, Tanner DJ, Slusher DL, Sparks JP, Flocke F, Guenther A (2006) Eddy covariance fluxes of peroxyacetylnitrates (PANs) and NOy to a coniferous forest. J Geophys Res 11: 1–17Google Scholar
  44. Turnipseed AA, Burns S, Moore D, Hu J, Guenther A, Monson R (2009) Controls over ozone deposition to a high elevation subalpine forest. Agric For Meteorol 149: 1446–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walmsley JL, Wesely ML (1996) Modification of coded parameterizations of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition. Atmos Environ 30: 1181–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wesely ML (1989) Parameterization of surface resistance to gaseous dry deposition in regional scale numerical models. Atmos Environ 23: 1293–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wesely ML, Hicks BB (1977) Some factors that affect the deposition rates of sulfur dioxide and similar gases on vegetation. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 27: 110–1116Google Scholar
  48. Wu Y, John W, Donna S, Peters-Lidard C, Dennis R, Robarge W (2009) A new model of bi- directional ammonia exchange between the atmosphere and biosphere: ammonia stomatal compensation point. Agric For Meteorol 149: 263–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang L, Brook JR, Vet R (2003) A revised parameterization for gaseous dry deposition in air quality models. Atmos Chem Phys 3: 2067–2082CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. Charusombat
    • 1
  • D. Niyogi
    • 1
  • A. Kumar
    • 2
  • X. Wang
    • 2
    • 3
  • F. Chen
    • 2
  • A. Guenther
    • 2
  • A. Turnipseed
    • 2
  • K. Alapaty
    • 4
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.National Center for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA
  3. 3.Sun Yat-Sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  4. 4.DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement ProgramGermantownUSA

Personalised recommendations