the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Two Biogenic Volatile Organic Compound Emission Datasets over Europe Based on Land Surface Modelling and Satellite Data Assimilation
Abstract. Biogenic volatile organic compound (BVOC) emissions from vegetation represent a major source of volatile compounds globally and play an important role as precursors for tropospheric ozone. Understanding their emissions is therefore crucial for quantifying the impact of ozone on air quality. We present two datasets of biogenic volatile organic compound emissions that cover the European modelling domain of the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service at a resolution of 0.1° × 0.1° to support the study of European scale air quality. The compounds included in the dataset follow the VOCs included in the regional atmospheric chemistry model mechanism (RACM). The datasets were produced within the framework of the EU's SEEDS project. We produced each dataset by coupling modelling output variables from the SURFEX land surface model with the MEGAN3.0 BVOC emission model. In one instance, the SURFEX model was run in free-running mode, which we term the open-loop (OL) and in the other case we assimilated satellite observations of leaf area index (LAI), which we term the analysis. The OL and analysis land surface model outputs form the basis for each emission dataset that are called SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 OL and SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 analysis, respectively. The OL dataset is available over a five-year period from 2018–2022 and the analysis dataset is available over the three-year period 2018–2020. SURFEX was run for both the OL and analysis simulations in a configuration that allowed simulated vegetation to respond to variations in meteorology over time to more realistically track vegetation phenology. Evaluation of the land surface model output LAI and root-zone soil moisture (RZSM) showed that the OL and analysis simulations had good skill at tracking temporal changes in both variables, with the analysis performing better in each instance. We perform a variety of evaluations on the isoprene emissions specifically given the importance of this compound for atmospheric chemistry. We evaluated the temporal variability of isoprene emissions in both datasets and found that the majority of the interannual and monthly variability was linked to variability in LAI that in specific cases, like the summer of 2019, could be linked to drought impacts on vegetation growth simulated by SURFEX. We evaluated the daily temporal variability of the OL and analysis isoprene emission datasets against in-situ online observations of isoprene concentrations at 8 sites in western Europe and found moderate to strong correlation between the emissions and observations in almost all location-year pairings. We also evaluated the OL and analysis emission datasets against other published bottom-up isoprene emission datasets over the same European domain used in this study. We found that the SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 OL and analysis isoprene emission datasets lie between the minimum (CAMS-GLOB-BIOv3.1) and maximum (MEGAN-MACC) published emission datasets based on bottom-up approaches. Furthermore, we were able to attribute differences in seasonality between SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 and other emission inventories to differences in the temporal variability of the underlying LAI dataset used to compile them. Overall, our findings show the importance of variability in LAI in controlling isoprene emissions on monthly to annual timescales. Combining this with the demonstrated skill of the emissions in evaluation with independent data, this points towards the value of an Earth-system approach to BVOC emission modelling.
- Preprint
(4075 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(7262 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 Nov 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-442', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Nov 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-442', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Nov 2025
reply
Hamer et al. present two new databases of BVOC emission inventories covering the CAMS European domain. They focus on some key aspects like the importance of using a land surface model that takes into account the humidity of soil and plant phenology modelling. The authors compare the results obtained with observations and previous databases, providing some explanations for the discrepancies found. The manuscript is well written and clear, and I recommend it for publication after the main comments have been addressed, and the minor comments integrated.
Main comments
- From the introduction, I recommend clearly identifying which processes driving biogenic emissions are already well represented in models (such as temperature dependence, LAI, and water stress) and which have been recognized but are still poorly represented (such as plant defenses and signaling via attractor molecules).
- The authors used the ECMWF HRES operational forecast; however, employing meteorological variables from a reanalysis dataset might have led to more robust results. The authors are kindly invited to comment on this methodological choice.
- In Section 3.1 (Performance of the SURFEX land surface model), could the authors please provide more details on the LAI/SIF comparison? For instance, what is the temporal resolution of the two datasets? Additionally, why is only Saint-Félix-de-Lauragais shown in the soil moisture comparison? Were other sites compared as well, and if so, did the comparisons yield similar results?
- In Section 3.3.2 (Evaluation using other emission datasets), could the authors please provide some explanation for the large differences observed between SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 and the MEGAN-MACC database? Are these differences mainly due to variations in the meteorological parameters, the emission factors, or both?
- The differences between SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 and CAMS-GLOB-BIOv3.1 are only partially explained by variations in LAI. This is particularly noteworthy since, although there is a difference in LAI between the SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 analysis and the SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 OL datasets, this difference does not appear to result in any noticeable change in emissions, at least none that are evident in Figure 16. I would therefore ask the authors to suggest plausible explanations for the discrepancies observed between these two datasets (SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 and CAMS-GLOB-BIOv3.1).
- In Section 3.3.2 ('Evaluation using other emission datasets'), it is mentioned that the differences in seasonality observed among the various emission datasets are mainly driven by LAI. The authors also note that “LAI datasets (based on Yuan et al., 2011) used to calculate the monthly emission factors in the CAMS-GLOB-BIOv3.1 emissions tend to peak later in summer than the LAI calculated by SURFEX.” Could the authors please provide additional details on this comparison, perhaps by including a figure or table to illustrate it more clearly?
- I suggest paying attention to the use of the term “dynamic vegetation”. This could be confusing for readers, as it may be interpreted as referring to “Dynamic Vegetation Models (DVMs)”. Such models represent the biosphere and are capable of simulating vegetation dynamics, that is, the transient development of vegetation composition and structure. This aspect is not addressed in your paper, where you primarily refer to plant phenology.
Minor comments
Line 208: The reference should be to Sect. 2.2.2 and not Sect. 2.1.2
Line 365: In the sentence “with LAI having a more significant and beneficial effect for the estimation of root zone soil moisture”: do the authors really mean that LAI have a beneficial effect for the estimation of root zone soil moisture?
Line 432: In the sentence the authors say that “We perform this evaluation using three approaches:”, but in the list after there are 4 points.
Line 434: Please add a reference to TROPOMI satellite observations of solar induced fluorescence (SIF).
Line 454: Please add a reference to SMOSMANIA in situ measurements.
From line 471 to 479: The authors come back speaking about LAI. It is a little bit misleading. I’ll move these lines before in the paragraph where the authors introduce the comparison with LAI.
Page 19: Please increase the size of Figure 5.
Line 553: Is the standard deviation calculated for isoprene average annual emitted mass over the 5 years?
Line 510: Could you please detailed more what do you mean with “gamma parameters for soil moisture, LAI, and radiation-temperature”. Do you mean the different activity factors (g)?
Page 22: Figure 8, as far as I understood, shows the R2 that is calculated on a yearly basis. This means that the times series of variables have only 5 elements. A correlation calculated like this is not very strong. It should be discussed a little in the text.
Page 27: Please add country contours in Figure 12.
Page 27: In Figure 12 (plot on the right). Could you please give some explanation on why there are still some areas where correlation is negative (especially in Portugal)?
Line 688: Please correct “Figure 15Figure 15”.
Line 759: In the sentence “such as wind, turbulence, boundary layer height, and isoprene lifetime are implicitly ignored in this comparison.” I would remove “isoprene lifetime”, as you mentioned just before.
Page 36: Figure 16 could be more readable with a legend.
Line 824: Please add reference to “SUMO emission inventories”.
Lines 809 and 813: “Analysis” should be written in lowercase letters.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-442-RC2
Data sets
SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 open-loop based BVOC emissions Paul Hamer et al. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/69G1FX
SURFEX-MEGAN3.0 analysis based BVOC emissions Paul Hamer et al. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LAUVTU
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 227 | 49 | 16 | 292 | 33 | 16 | 20 |
- HTML: 227
- PDF: 49
- XML: 16
- Total: 292
- Supplement: 33
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Hamer et al. applied the land surface model and satellite products to reconstruct the BVOC emission across Europe. Overall, the study is very interesting. However, the manuscript still suffers from some weaknesses. I recommend the manuscript for publication on ESSD after the following comments have been well addressed.