Modelling of ozone impacts to crops and forests

Gina Mills (ICP Vegetation) and David Simpson (EMEP)

Content

• Latest maps for GP2005 and GP2030CLE – Surface maximum O3 concentration

– POD1 for deciduous forests

– POD3 and POD6 for crops

• Effect of “Y” in PODY • Ozone, Ecosystem Services and biodiversity

Surface maximum O3 conc. (annual mean)

2030CLE Max surface ozone, annual mean, ppb

2005 Max surface ozone, annual mean, ppb

Surface maximum O3 conc. (annual mean)

2005 2030CLE % reduction

mean 42.5 40.0 5.9%

25th centile 39.3 37.7 4.1%

75th centile 45.6 42.2 7.5%

58.554.049.545.040.536.031.5

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Annual mean max surface O3 (ppb)

Freq

uenc

y

2005 maxsurf O32030CLE max surf O3

Surface maximum ozone concentration

Difference between 2005 and 2030CLE, ppb

POD1 for Deciduous forests

2005 POD1 Deciduous forest

2030CLE POD1 Deciduous forest

POD1 for Deciduous forests

2005 2030CLE % reduction

mean 24.0 20.3 15.4%

25th centile 16.7 14.4 13.8%

75th centile 32.2 27.0 16.1%

544536271890

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

POD1gen Deciduous forests (mmol m-2)

Freq

uenc

y

2005 POD1 Dec Forest2030CLE POD1 Dec Forests

POD1 for Deciduous forests

POD1 Deciduous forests, difference between 2005 and 2030CLE

2005 Crops POD3 2030CLE Crops POD3

POD3 for Crops (wheat)

2005 2030CLE % reduction

mean 12.2 9.6 21.3

25th centile 7.4 5.8 21.6

75th centile 17.3 13.8 20.2

3024181260

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

POD3gen Crops (mmol m-2)

Freq

uenc

y

2005 POD3 Crops2030CLE POD3 Crop

POD3 for Crops (wheat)

% reduction, 2005 to 2030CLE

POD1 POD3 POD6

mean 15.4% 21.2% 35.5%

25th centile 13.8% 15.7% 26.1%

75th centile 16.1% 27.0% 45.5%

80706050403020100-1

0-2

0

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

% reduction in PODY

Freq

uenc

y

% reduction POD1 % reduction POD3% reduction POD6

Effect of “Y”

y = 5.27x + 2.8R² = 0.995

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14min

imum

O3

conc

. nee

ded

to c

ontr

ibut

e

POD threshold

Example: a generic flux model for grass species

Increasing the “Y” in PODY increases the ozone concentration above which PODY is accumulated

With a high “Y”, the benefit of European controls of peak ozone concentration are more clearly shown

BUT (message from Dave): mapping becomes less accurate…

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103

109

115

121

127

133

139

145

151

157

163

Ozo

ne, p

pb

2012 average profile – actual data

Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu

Ozone episode repeated every week in highest treatment, 7 treatments

Bigger decrease in peak = European controls

Smaller decrease in background = Global controls

Ozone exposure experiments

Effects of different “Y” on PODY

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

POD

ygen

, gra

ss

Decrease in peak ozone (ppb)

POD1gen grass

Pod3gen grass

Pod6gen grass

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

POD

ygen

, gra

ss

Decrease in background ozone (ppb)

POD1gen grass

Pod3gen grass

Pod6gen grass

Small decrease in peak/background = big benefit Never get to zero POD1 or POD3 as accumulating ozone at concs. below background

(Range in peak conc 43 – 100 ppb) (Range in background conc 27 to 51 ppb)

PEAK BACKGROUND

Ozone: Ecosystem Services & Biodiversity Ecological processes and supporting services:

- Primary production (and C cycling) - Nutrient cycling - Stomatal functioning (and water cycling)

Provisioning services: - Crop production - Timber production* New analysis being conducted

Biodiversity (including case-study Mediterranean)

Regulating services: - C sequestration and global warming - Air quality (via effects on vegetation) - Methane emissions - Water cycling - Flowering, pollination, insect signalling

Cultural services (leisure, recreation, amenity)

Valuing ozone impacts on ecosystem services

Conclusions and research recommendations

Contributions from Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland and UK

UK Study: Impact pathway for pasture quality

Δ yield (biomass)

Δ forage quality

Δ Value: -Livestock sale price -Cost of rearing animals -Value of silage/hay

Δ meat/ dairy yield;

fodder quality

Ozone

2012 number Range 2005 – 2012

Beef cattle > 2 years old

1.7 million 1.7 – 1.8 million

Dairy cattle > 2 years old

1.8 million 1.8 – 2.0 million

Sheep + lambs* 32 million* 31 – 32 million

* Value £1.1 billion (€ 1.3billion)

Sample preparation

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 20 40 60 80 100

Met

abol

isab

le e

nerg

y, M

J/kg

Ozone, 24h mean, ppb

Metabolisable energy (sheep)

Calcareous

Hay Meadow

Mesotrophic

Sand Dune

Pasture quality vs supplementary feed

0123456789

1011

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Rela

tive

con

trib

utio

n

Pasture Quality (MJ/Kg)

25kg lambs

MJ needed from concentrateMJ from the pasture

y = -0.0538x + 0.6

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 5 10 15

Kg c

once

ntra

te n

eede

d (p

er

lam

b pe

r day

)

Pasture Quality (MJ/Kg)

lambs 25kglambs 35kgmean lambs

Range in our expts Range in our expts

Poorest quality pasture

Highest quality pasture

* Relationships varies by lamb size

Ozone impacts on lamb liveweight gain

Darker colour = larger effect

Decrease in pasture quality

Liveweight gain per square

DRAFT MAPS*

Total liveweight gain of lambs per day is predicted to be decreased by 4% in 2020 compared to 2007 Economic valuation

being finalised

In the UK the effects are

largest where the ozone increase is moderate but there are many lambs

From 2007 to 2020

* To be corrected for pasture location

European moss survey Conducted every 5 year since 1990

Heavy metals, nitrogen since 2005, POPs since 2010

Coordination by ICP Vegetation: since 2000

Indication of spatial patterns and temporal trends of deposition atmospheric pollutants to vegetation

0

1

2

3

4

0

5

10

15

20

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Pb

depo

sitio

n (g

km

-2y-

1 )

Pb

mos

s (m

g kg

-1)

Year

Lead

Summary: Modelling ozone Comparing GP2005 and GP2030CLE for ozone Mean 6% decrease in surface maximum ozone concentration

largest in Med. Europe, small increase in NW Europe POD1 for trees decreases by 15% and POD3 for crops by 21% Using a higher “Y” in PODY shows beneficial effects of European policy to control peak O3 Low Y (e.g. POD1) accumulates ozone at concentrations well below the background, therefore European controls are less apparent New ICP Vegetation reports

Thank you to Defra, LRTAP and NERC for funding

SPARES

10.07.55.02.50.0-2.5-5.0

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

Diff max O3

Diff

PO

D3

POD3 for Crops (wheat)

POD3 Crops Difference between 2005 and 2030CLE

POD6 for crops

2030CLE crops POD6 2005CLE crops POD6

POD6 for crops

2005 2030CLE % reduction

mean 5.6 3.6 35.7

25th centile 2.4 1.3 45.8

75th centile 8.3 5.7 31.3

21.618.014.410.87.23.60.0

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

POD6gen crops (mmol m-2)

Freq

uenc

y

2005 POD6 Crops2030CLE POD6 crops

POD6 for crops

POD6 gen Crops difference between 2005 and 2030CLE