Framework 7 projectEC Contribution of 7 Million Euro39 partnersCo-ordinated by CEH
Clare Howard, Mark Sutton, Eiko Nemitz Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, EH26 0QB, UK+ ÉCLAIRE Consortium
What is ÉCLAIRE about?
ÉCLAIRE is targeting climate-ecosystem-atmosphere interactions and their implications for ecosystem effects at the European scale, combining observations and experiments in the field and laboratory with modelling experiments from plot to European scales, while accounting for changes in global background.
Overall Project Objectives
Focusing especially on the role of ozone and nitrogen, and (where relevant) their interactions with volatile organic compounds, aerosols and sulphur, ÉCLAIRE aims:
O 1. to provide robust understanding of air pollution impacts on European land ecosystems including soils under changing climate conditions, and
O 2. to provide reliable and innovative risk assessment methodologies for these ecosystem impacts of air pollution, including the economic implications, to support EU policy.
Key questions
• What are the expected impacts on ecosystems due to changing ozone and N-deposition under a range of climate change scenarios, taking into consideration the associated changes in atmospheric CO2, aerosol and acidification?
• Which of these effects off-set and which aggravate each other, and how do the mitigation and adaptation measures recommended under climate change relate to those currently being recommended to meet air pollution effects targets?
• What are the relative effects of long-range global and continental atmospheric transport vs. regional and local transport on ecosystems in a changing climate?
• What are the appropriate metrics to assess O3 and N impacts on plants and
soils, when considering state-of-the-art understanding of interactions with CO2 and climate, and the different effects of wet vs. dry deposition on physiological responses?
Key questions (continued)
• What is the relative contribution of climate dependence in biogenic emissions and deposition vs. climate dependence of ecosystem thresholds and responses in determining the overall effect of climate change on air pollution impacts?
• Which mitigation and/or adaptation measures are required to reduce the damage to “acceptable” levels to protect carbon stocks and ecosystem functioning? How do the costs associated with the emission abatement compare with the economic benefits of reduced damage?
• How can effective and cost-efficient policies on emission abatement be devised in the future?
WorkflowWP3
Modelling emission processes
WP1Field studies on exchange
processes
WP2Controlled studies on exchange processes
WP4Surface exchange
modelling
WP5Past and future changes of
atmospheric pollutants transported into Europe
WP6Emissions on regional,
European to global scale
WP8Assessing local & regional
variation
WP7Modelling European air pollution & deposition
WP19Integrating effects of
air pollution under climate change
WP18Econ. impacts &
valuation of ecosystem services
WP20Implications for mitigation and
adaptation strategies
WP9Synthesis & meta-analysis
of measurements of plant-soil responses
WP10Field scale ecosystem
manipulation & controlled studies on ecol. responses
WP11Investigation of novel
ecosystem – air pollution –climate interactions
WP17Local variation in
threshold exceedance
WP16European maps of novel
thresholds & exceedances
WP15Air pollution - climate
impacts on biodiversity & soil quality
WP12Development &
assessment of novel thresholds
WP13Modelling C stocks, GHG and vegetation
change
C1: Emissions & Exchange Processes
C2 Emissions & exchange at local, European to global scales
C3: Ecological response processes and thresholds
C4: Ecological responses at regional and European scales
C5: Integrated risk assessment and policy tools
WP21 (T2)Common
Measurement Protocols
WP21 (T1)Harmonization of scenarios
(climate, air chemistry, land-use)
WP21 (T3)Model protocols and uncertainty
WP21 (T4)Data quality & database
Management
Linking all components
Samples for experiments
Analysis of new & existing datasets
New paramet-erizations
Temporal and spatial patterns
Standardizing inputs for model intercomparison of climate –air pollution interactions
Campaign measurements of air – ecosystem exchange
Climate effect on source-receptor relationships
Effects of climate on emissions & air chemistry transformations
European conc-deposition fields & feedbacks
Upscaling of biogeochemical models & novel thresholds
Estimates from case studies
Driver Interactions:•Climate(radiation, T, water)•Atmos. Composition(O3, N CO2, aerosol)•Land management
PEGASOS FP7 ProjectClimate, air quality and human health
WP14 Air pollution-climate
impacts on European C stocks & GHG
Provision of site deposition estimates (including air composition monitoring)
Sub-grid procedure
Coup
led
flux-
effec
t stu
dies
Talks by:Camilla GeelsDavid SimpsonRoy Wichink-Kruit
Talk by:Giacomo GerosaPosters by:Mhairi CoyleGiacomo Gerosamyself
C1: Flux networkHyytiala forest (FI-Hyy)
Potrodolinskoyearable (UA-Pet)
Bugac grassland (HU-Bug)
Ispra forest (IT-Isp)
Speuld forest (NL-Spe)
Grignon arable (FR-Gri)
Auchencorthgrassland (UK-AMo)
Posieux grassland (CH-Pos)Bosco Fontana Forest (IT-BFo)
-20-15-10
-50
11/04/2013 13/04/2013 15/04/2013 17/04/2013 19/04/2013
-20-15-10
-50
-20-15-10
-50
O3
flux
[nm
ol m
-2 s
-1]
-20-15-10
-50
-20-15-10
-50
-20-15-10
-50
Bugac grassland [HU]
Ispra forest [IT]
Bosco Fontana forest [IT]
Auchencorth Moss grassland [UK]
Grignon arable [FR]
Posieux grassland [CH]
~41.5 m
M Coyle, CEH 2012
C1 Campaign: Bosco della Fontana, Mantova
O3CO2/H2O
~32 m
~24 m
~16 m
~8 m
GRAEGOR
GRAEGOR
O3
O3
O3
O3
CO2/H2O
Gas inlet
Gas inlets
Gas inlet
Gas inlet
Gas inlet~5 m
Met : wind; rainfall (bucket & WXT);Temperature (RHT & APT);
Direct/Diffuse PAR; Net. Rad
Met : RHT & APT
Met : RHT & APT
Met : RHT & APT
Met : RHT
Metek sonic
Gill HS sonic
Gill Windmaster sonics
INRA In-canopy flux monitoringAuto-chambers
Tow-a-van & Cabin- PTR-MS, PTR-ToF-MS- HR-ToF-AMS- EEPS- NO flux- GRAEGOR- Gradient O3/NOx/CO2/H2O
AETHALOMETER, APS, DMPS
CEILOMETER by offices
Surface wetness clips
UHSAS/CPC
(In-canopy) chemistry of:NO-O3-NO2
O3-VOCNH3-HNO3-NH4NO3
VOC fluxes (as a driver of in-canopy chemistry)
0
1
2
3
Isoprene concentration [ppb]
00:0021/06/2012
12:00 00:0022/06/2012
12:00 00:0023/06/2012
12:00 00:0024/06/2012
20
10
0Isop
rene
flux
[nm
ol m
-2 s
-1] PTR-MS
PTR-ToF-MS
Concentration
Flux
20
15
10
5
0
VO
C fl
ux [n
mol
m-2
s-1
]0:0
0 - 1
:00
1:00
- 2:0
02:0
0 - 3
:00
3:00
- 4:0
04:0
0 - 5
:00
5:00
- 6:0
06:0
0 - 7
:00
7:00
- 8:0
08:0
0 - 9
:00
9:00
- 10:
00
10:0
0 - 1
1:00
11:0
0 - 1
2:00
12:0
0 - 1
3:00
13:0
0 - 1
4:00
14:00
- 15
:00
15:00
- 16
:00
16:0
0 - 1
7:00
17:0
0 - 1
8:00
18:0
0 - 1
9:00
19:0
0 - 2
0:00
20:00
- 21
:00
21:0
0 - 2
2:00
22:0
0 - 2
3:00
23:0
0 - 2
4:00
isoprene (m69) MVK/MACR (m71) methanol (m33) acetone (m59) acetaldehyde (m45) hexanal (m101) EVK (m37) monoterpenes (m137)
Coverage (%) MT totals(LIDAR) nmol m-2s-1 Dev. St. nmol m-2s-1 Dev. St. nmol m-2s-1 Dev. St. nmol m-2s-1 Dev. St. nmol m-2s-1 Dev. St. nmol m-2s-1
Quercus robur 17 2.639 0.675 0.016 0.009 n.d. n.d. 0.001 0.001 0.025 0.016 0.042Quercus rubra 9.6 1.008 0.268 0.000 0.003 n.d. n.d. 0.003 0.003 n.d. n.d. 0.003Carpinus betulus 40.2 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.013 0.003 0.106 0.056 0.129Corylus avellana 0.88 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.003 n.d. n.d. 0.002 0.005 0.135 0.091 0.140Acer campestre 0.626 0.000 0.005 0.013 0.005 n.d. n.d. 0.019 0.007 0.006 0.002 0.038Sambucus nigra n.a. 0.005 0.302 0.000 0.000 n.d. n.d. 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002Cornus sanguinea n.a. 0.441 0.266 0.001 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.050 0.050 0.051Shadow + Grassland 8TOTAL 76.306
Isoprene a-pinene sabinene b-pinene limonene
Courtesy of Giannelle et al. (2007)
Field site
The vegetation survey was performed for the entire forest, but Quercus was more abundant in our site
Carpinus betulus
Quercus robur
Corylus avellana
Acer campestre
Contour Graph 2
X Data
20 40 60 80 100 120
Y D
ata
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
C1: Comparison satellite vs. ground based NH3
50x1015
40
30
20
10
0
Col
umn
conc
entra
tion
[mol
ecul
es c
m-2
]
11/06/2012 21/06/2012 01/07/2012 11/07/2012
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Surface concentration [µg m
-3]
50x1015
40
30
20
10
0
Col
umn
conc
entra
tion
[mol
ecul
es c
m-2
]
11/06/2012 21/06/2012 01/07/2012 11/07/2012
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Surface concentration [µg m
-3]
IASI column MARGA daily MARGA 10 am / 10 pm
Monte Cimone
Bologna
SPC
BoscoFontana
IASI Product
ÉCLAIRE flux network / Forest sites
C1: Laboratory work: NO emissions from soils & litter
Litter emissions (20˚C)
NO litter emissions at 20°C
%WW
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NO
em
issi
ons
[µg
NO
-N h
-1 k
g-1]
0
100
200
300
400
ISPRA FORESTBOSCO FONTANASPEULDER BOSHYYTIÄLÄ
NO soil emissions at 20°C
WFPS [%]
0 20 40 60 80 100
NO
em
issi
ons
[µg
NO
-N h
-1 m
-2]
0
100
200
300
400
500
ISPRA FORESTBOSCO FONTANASPEULDER BOSHYYTIÄLÄ
NO soil emissions (top 6 cm) (20˚C)
C3: Solardome experiments
Results from Ozone × Nitrogen interaction solardome experiments, UK, 2013.Generating data for model development.
r² = 0.46, p <0.001
55.5
66.5
77.5
8
0 20 40 60 80Mea
n di
mat
er p
er tr
ee, m
m
Target mean ozone (ppb)
10 kg ha yr
30 kg ha yr
50 kg ha yr
70 kg ha yr
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
10 30 50 70St
omat
al co
nduc
tanc
e, mm
olm
-2Nitrogen treatment, kg ha-1 yr-1
C3: Lab work on leaf level protection mechanisms
C4: % NPP enhancement in global ‘FACE experiment’
Without C-N
With C-N
C2: Wildfire emissions
Representations of emissions of biogenic pollutant precursors have been improved, in particular regarding wildfire emissions and nitrogen. These improvements the investigation of separately and jointly the effects of climate change and changes in socioeconomic conditions on wildfire emissions.
Emissions of CO and particle mass computed with LPJ-GUESS global ecosystem model and GFED burned area according to different emissions models. CF: combustion factor for woody litter.
CO e
miss
ion
[Mt C
]
Aero
sol [
Mt P
M]
C5: Interaction with policy
‘Estimating environmentally relevant fixed nitrogen demand in the 21st century’ (Winiwarter et al., 2013), Climatic Change
Estimation of Nitrogen fixation to 2100, through the use of RCP’s, and assigning key drivers to underlying scenarios.
C5/C2: NH3 emission predictions – temperature effect
Sutton et al., Proc. Roy. Met. Soc. 2013
Figure S5: Estimated relative change in projected anthropogenic NH3 emissions over the period 2008 to 2100, based on Lamarque et al. (2010). These estimates are developed for the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) for use by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change according to different warming scenarios of 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 W m-2. The additional effect of the estimated climate feedback on anthropogenic NH3 emissions is illustrated for RCP 8.5 according to a 5 ºC warming by 2100 based on Table S2.
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Estim
ated
em
issio
n re
lativ
e to
200
8
RCP 2.6RCP 4.5RCP 6.0RCP 8.5RCP 8.5 + climate (mid)RCP 8.5 + climate (low)RCP 8.5 + climate (high)
Selected achievements
• Integrated dataset on in-canopy chemistry • Dataset for validation of IASI EO products• Growing database on flux measurements for process
parameterisations across 9-site network• Direct emissions of isoprene oxidation products• Identification of litter as major NO source• Effects of multiple drivers (composition × climate)• Scenarios of N usage and emissions
• Quantification of effect of temperature on NH3 emissions
Preliminary results
First results indicate that climate change will worsen the threat of air pollutants on Europe’s ecosystems:
• Climate warming may cause an increase the emissions of many trace gases, such as biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs), ammonia (NH3) and the soil component of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. These effects are expected to increase ground-level concentrations of NH3, NOx and ozone (O3), as well as atmospheric nitrogen deposition. The emerging message is that this interaction is likely to be significant
• Climate warming may increase the vulnerability of ecosystems towards air pollutant exposure or atmospheric deposition. Such effects may occur as a consequence of combined perturbation, as well as through specific interactions, such as between drought, O3, N and aerosol exposure. Further evidence is required before clear statements can be made
