Abstract
During the summer of 1992, isoprene emissions were measured in a mixed deciduous forest near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Measurements were aimed at the experimental scale‐up of emissions from the leaf level to the forest canopy to the mixed layer. Results from the scale‐up study are compared to different canopy models for determining the leaf microclimate as input to isoprene emission algorithms. These include (1) no canopy effects, (2) a simple vertical scaling canopy model with a leaf energy balance, and (3) a numerical canopy model which accounts for leaf‐sun geometries, photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration, and gas transport in the canopy. Initial evaluation of the models was based upon a standard emission rate factor of 90 μgC g −1 hr −1 (0.42 nmol g −1 s −1 ) taken from leaf cuvette measurements and a biomass density factor of 203 g m −2 taken from biomass surveys and a flux footprint analysis. The results indicated that predicted fluxes were consistent among the models to within approximately ±20%, but that the models overestimated the mean flux by about a factor of 2 and overestimated the maximum observed flux by 30 to 50%. Adjusting the standard emission factor and biomass density each downward by 20% yielded predicted means approximately 20% greater than the observed means and predicted maxima approximately 25% less than the observed maxima. Accounting for changes in biomass density as a function of direction upwind of the tower improved the overall model performance.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
Predicted isoprene fluxes agreed among canopy models within about 20%.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“predicted fluxes were consistent among the models to within approximately ±20%”
Claim · model-written summary
Models overestimated mean observed flux by about twofold.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“the models overestimated the mean flux by about a factor of 2”
Claim · model-written summary
Models overestimated maximum observed flux by 30 to 50%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“overestimated the maximum observed flux by 30 to 50%”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing the emission factor and biomass density by 20% gave predicted means about 20% above observations.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Adjusting the standard emission factor and biomass density each downward by 20% yielded predicted means approximately 20% greater than the observed means”
Claim · model-written summary
That adjustment gave predicted maxima about 25% below observations.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“predicted maxima approximately 25% less than the observed maxima”
Claim · model-written summary
Direction-specific biomass density improved overall model performance.
Not reportedTaxonComparatorValue
Verbatim
e0“Accounting for changes in biomass density as a function of direction upwind of the tower improved the overall model performance”