To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Comparison of different s… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
To content Read more about how we use cookies on

Comparison of different stomatal conductance algorithms for ozone flux modelling

Authors P Buker
L. Emberson
G Gerosa
C Jacobs
K. Novak
E. Oksanen
Håkan Pleijel
M. Schaub
D de la Torre
JP Tuovinen
Johan Uddling
M. Ashmore
Published in UNECE – Workshop “Critical Levels of Ozone: Further applying and developing the flux-based concept”, Obergurgl, 15-19 November 2005
Publication year 2005
Published at Department of Environmental Science and Conservation
Botanical Institute
Language en
Subject categories Terrestrial ecology


Two widely used algorithms for modelling stomatal conductance (gs) were compared in order to evaluate the approach leading to the most realistic predictions of stomatal fluxes to vegetated surfaces: a multiplicative algorithm initially developed by Jarvis (1976) and refined by Emberson et al. (2000) (DO3SE ) and a photosynthesis-based Ball&Berry-type algorithm developed by Nikolov et al. (1995) (LEAFC3). Both models were parameterised for several crop and tree species (wheat, grapevine, Scots pine, beech and birch) and have been applied to various datasets – with the main focus on wheat - representing different European regions (North, Central and South Europe). A sensitivity analysis has been carried out for both models to evaluate the dependence of gs on the meteorological parameters temperature, photosynthetic active radiation and vapour pressure deficit. Furthermore, in order to test whether a general species-specific parameterisation can account for differences in gs due to plants growing under different climatic conditions throughout Europe, the models have been re-parameterised for local meteorological conditions. A direct comparison of both models showed that the net photosynthetic-based model required more detailed meteorological (e.g. ambient CO2-concentration, dew-point temperature) and plant-physiological (e.g. Vcmax and Jmax) input parameters while not delivering a substantially higher R2 when comparing measured and modelled gs. The relative weakness of the multiplicative model lies in its dependence on the maximum stomatal conductance (gmax), whereas the photosynthesis-based model is not taking into account phenology-related changes in gs. Furthermore, the results show that an equally close relationship between gs and net photosynthetic rate throughout the entire growing season is questionable. We conclude that the multiplicative approach is favourable for calculating stomatal fluxes on a wider scale (e.g. within EMEP-deposition model), whereas the photosynthesis-based approach is a potential alternative for modelling fluxes on a local scale.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?