quantifying the threat from ozone pollution to food security icp vegetation – emep collaboration...
TRANSCRIPT
Quantifying the threat from ozone pollution to food security
ICP Vegetation – EMEP collaboration
Gina Mills, David Simpson, Harry Harmens et al.
> Brief summary of results of food security study
> Ozone and C sequestration study – to be published November, 2011
> Collaboration with EMEP – further development
ICP VEGETATION
ICP Vegetation State of Knowledge Report
Report to be published in late September
How does O3 damage crops?
By how much?
Which crops are sensitive?
Effects in N and S Europe
Case studies, including S Asia
Pre-publication copies available
ICP VEGETATION
O3 conc. in air (e.g. AOT40)
Stomatal ozone flux(e.g. POD6)Takes into account:
• [O3] in air• temperature• light• humidity (VPD)• soil moisture• plant development
Ozone indicators for vegetation
Ozone flux (POD6)
Health vs vegetation indicators, 2000
AOT40 SOMO35
Predicting impacts of ozone on food security
Aerodynam icresistance
Boundary layerresistance
Soilresistance
C uticu larresistance
R a
R b
R ext
R gs
Stom ata lresistance
R sto
In-canopyaerodynam icresistance R inc Substom ata l
cavityExterna l
p lant tissue
A tm ospheric Oconcentra tion
3
Soil
Dose-response relationships from ozone-exposure experiments across Europe*
Crops: wheat and tomato
Models of ozone transfer to vegetation and uptake by stomata(DO3SE – EMEP model)
Maps of ozone flux (POD6) and crop production for 2000
National Emissions Scenario, current legislation used for 2000 and 2020 for EU27+CH+NO
* Mills et al, Atmospheric Environment (2011)
Numbers represent “best estimates”
Ozone flux (POD6) in 2000 Wheat production (2000)
Quantifying impacts on wheat production
* Assumes adequate soil moisture
Economic losses for wheat in Europe
2000 2020
* Assumes adequate soil moisture available
Losses are in million Euro per 50 x 50 km grid square:
0 – 0.01 0.01 – 0.1 0.1 – 1.0 1.0 – 2.5 2.5 – 5.0 > 5
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
Mill
ion
Euro
lost
2000
2020
Economic losses for wheat, highest 10 countries
ICP VEGETATION
2000 2020
Loss in value 3.2 billion Euro 1.96 billion Euro
Loss in production 26.9 million t 16.5 million t
Proportion of grid squares exceeding critical level1
84.8 % 82.2%
Area at risk of losses2 24.5 million ha 24.5 million ha
1 In wheat-growing areas2 Estimated for each grid square from the mean t/ha per country
Effects on wheat in EU27+CH+NO, NAT scenario
ICP VEGETATION
Quantifying impacts on Tomato production
Ozone flux (POD6) in 2000 Tomato production (2000)
ICP VEGETATION
*Irrigation assumed*squares with > 3 t production shown
Economic losses for Tomato in Europe
2000 2020
Economic loss in million Euro per 50 x 50 km grid square:
0 – 0.01 0.01 – 0.1 0.1 – 1.0 1.0 – 2.5 2.5 – 5.0 > 5
* Irrigation assumed, squares with > 3 t production shown
Economic losses for Tomato, highest 10 countries
0100200300400500600700800
Mill
ion
Euro
lost
2000
2020
ICP VEGETATION
2000 2020
Loss in value 1.02 billion Euro 0.63 billion Euro
Proportion of grid squares exceeding critical level
77.8 % 51.3%
Area at risk of losses* 0.33 million ha 0.23 million ha
* Estimated for each grid square from the mean t/ha per country
Effects on Tomato in EU27+CH+NO, NAT scenario
ICP VEGETATION
Next report: O3 and C sequestration, including feedbacks to climate
To be published, November, 2011
Review of current knowledge
Impacts on carbon storage in grasslands and forests for 2000 and 2040, using climate and O3 data from EMEP to run the::
(1) DO3SE model(2) JULES model (Sitch et al.,
2007. Nature)
O3Less CO2 uptake
Less C in roots
Increased radiative forcing by CO2 and O3
ICP VEGETATION
Future ICP Vegetation - EMEP Collaboration
+ Please!
New scenarios for ex-Post analysis – use in food security and C sequestration analysis
Inputs to forthcoming ecosystems services study (2013/14)
Further upgrading of EMEP model to reflect new developments in flux modelling
Further collaboration on development of methodology, including in EU-ECLAIRE project
MSc-West
We would benefit from:
ICP VEGETATION
CIAM
We remain concerned that GAINS runs are based on health impacts (SOMO35) alone. Vegetation (including impacts on food security and C sequestration) may remain unprotected in large areas of Europe.
Inclusion of flux-based methodology into next version of GAINS
TFIAM
We welcome inputs and are happy to contribute as needed
MSc-East
Further testing/comparing performance EMEP Heavy Metal Model (spatial resolution at 5 km x 5 km?) with measured concentrations in mosses at a high spatial resolution (ca. 6000 moss sites in 2005)
Future ICP Vegetation - EMEP Collaboration
ICP VEGETATION
SPARES
Summary of results
Wheat The area of medium-high ozone fluxes includes the main wheat
growing areas in central and NW Europe
Economic losses in 2000 were predicted to be 3.2 billion Euro
Whereas the area of highest fluxes is predicted to decrease by 2020, ca. 24 million ha of wheat remain at risk of damage, with losses still predicted to be 2 billion Euro.
Tomato The area of highest fluxes coincides with the areas of greatest
production in S Europe; other tomato growing areas such as the Netherlands have lower, yet still damaging fluxes
Economic losses in 2000 were predicted to be 1 billion Euro.
In 2020, ozone flux is predicted to decrease in the tomato growing areas, reducing economic losses to 0.6 billion Euro.
AOT40-based economic impact assessment for wheat
Losses are in million Euro per 50 x 50 km grid square:
0 – 0.01 0.01 – 0.1 0.1 – 1.0 1.0 – 2.5 2.5 – 5.0 > 5
2000 2020
Ozone flux (POD6) in 2000
Quantifying impacts on wheat
AOT40 in 2000
AOT40POD6
Wheat yield loss in 2000
Losses are in million Euro per 50 x 50 km grid square:
0 – 0.01 0.01 – 0.1 0.1 – 1.0 1.0 – 2.5 2.5 – 5.0 > 5
2000 2020
POD6 AOT40 POD6 AOT40
Loss in value (billion Euro)
3.2 1.55* 1.96 0.45*
Proportion of grid squares exceeding critical level (%)
84.8 65.7* 82.2 9.0*
Area at risk of losses*(million ha)
24.5 21.6* 24.5 2.0*
* Indicative figures only
Wheat: NAT Scenario, EU27+CH+NO
Sensitive Moderately sensitive
Tolerant
Peas and beans (including peanut) (30)Sweet potato (28)Orange (27)Onion (23)Turnip (22)Plum (22)Lettuce (19)Wheat (18)Soybean (18)
Alfalfa (14)Water melon (14)Tomato (13)Olive (13)Field mustard (12)Sugar beet (11)Oilseed rape (11)Maize (10)Rice (9)Potato (9)Barley (6)Grape (5)
Strawberry (1)Oat (0)Broccoli (-5)
Grouping of crops by sensitivity of yield to ozone.
Values in brackets represent the percentage decrease in yield at a 7h mean ozone concentration of 60 ppb compared to that at 30 ppb.
gsto = gmax *[min(fphen, fO3)]* flight * max{fmin, (ftemp * fVPD * fSWP)}
Separate functions for effects of phenology, ozone, light, temperature, VPD (humidity) and soil moisture (SWP) on stomatal conductance
Species-specific value
See Pleijel et al., 2007, Atmos. Envt. 41, 3022, for further details
To predict impacts on food security we model ozone uptake by stomata using the Jarvis approach:
Flux method