EGU22-8155, updated on 08 Jan 2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-8155
EGU General Assembly 2022
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Ecosystem gross primary productivity during the COVID-19 lockdown

Angela Che Ing Tang1, Christophe Flechard2, Guillaume Simioni3, Paul C. Stoy4, Silvano Fares5, Matthias Cuntz6, Ladislav Šigut7, Matthias Peichl8, Ivan Mammarella9, Nina Buchmann10, Daniel Berveiller11, John Douros12, Renske Timmermans13, Corinna Rebmann14, Alexander Knohl15, Nicola Arriga16, Tom Taborski1, Zheng Fu17, Mats Nilsson18, Denis Loustau1, and the co-authors*
Angela Che Ing Tang et al.
  • 1UMR ISPA, INRAE, Villenave d'Ornon, France
  • 2UMR SAS, INRAE, Rennes, France
  • 3URFM, INRAE, Avignon, France
  • 4Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
  • 5CNR-National Research Council, Rome, Italy
  • 6Université de Lorraine, AgroParisTech, INRAE, UMR Silva, Nancy, France
  • 7Department of Matter and Energy Fluxes, Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic
  • 8Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
  • 9Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  • 10Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  • 11Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique et Evolution, Orsay, France
  • 12Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, the Netherlands
  • 13Climate Air and Sustainability Unit, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Utrecht, the Netherlands
  • 14Department of Computational Hydrosystems, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
  • 15Bioclimatology, Faculty of Forest Sciences, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
  • 16Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy
  • 17Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, LSCE/IPSL, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
  • 18Department of Forest Ecology & Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
  • *A full list of authors appears at the end of the abstract

During the spring of 2020, many countries around the world imposed lockdown measures involving economic activity and movement restrictions to contain the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), thereby leading to changes in air pollutant concentrations (Venter et al., 2020). The unprecedented reductions in primary pollutant emissions created a unique opportunity to assess the response of photosynthetic activity of terrestrial ecosystems to atmospheric changes in air quality. Our hypothesis was that a concentration decrease in particulate matter (PM) and the resulting change in light scattering may have affected photosynthesis via changes in direct and diffuse radiation, while a reduction of ozone precursor emissions may have negatively impacted the formation of ozone and reduced its phytotoxic effects. Thus, we analysed turbulent fluxes from eddy covariance measurements and meteorological data collected at the Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS) ecosystem stations, and also air pollution data from a continental-scale chemistry transport model (LOTOS-EUROS). Using observations from 44 sites in Europe spanning eleven countries and nine vegetation types, we calculated a 4-month (March-April-May-June, hereafter ‘spring’) anomaly of gross primary productivity (GPP) as the cumulative difference of GPP between 2020 and the reference period from 2015 to 2019. For 34 out of 44 sites, we found that the means between 2020 and the reference GPP were different at the 5% significance level. We further classify these sites into four groups according to modelling and simulation analyses and related data.

  • Group 1 included 16 sites where the GPP anomaly was predominantly driven by changes in meteorology. A 7-31% GPP reduction of eight sites in this group was attributed to several different factors such as reduced incoming shortwave radiation (SW_IN), increased vapour pressure deficit (VPD), late growing season and legacy effects. The remaining eight sites experienced an increase in GPP (5-20%) which coincided with increased SW_IN and reduced diffuse fraction (Kd).
  • Group 2 consisted of five sites where the GPP anomaly was primarily linked to drought-related effects as indicated by an exceptional increase in the Bowen ratio (δß > 29%), declines in soil water content (SWC) and precipitation.
  • Group 3 was represented by five sites where the GPP anomaly was presumably affected by both meteorology and pollutants. All sites in this group experienced an increase in GPP of 14-47% that coincided with enhanced SW_IN (2-13%), reduced atmospheric concentrations of NO2 (28-47%), NO (33-57%), O3 (2-3%), SO2 (5-7%), PM10 (4-14%), PM2.5 (9-17%) and increased NH3 (1-5%).
  • There were eight grassland and savannah sites in Group 4 where the ecosystem management interacted with meteorology to mainly increase GPP by 10-41%.

We first conclude that meteorology and pollutant concentrations during the spring were different between 2020 and 2015-2019 period. Second, our analyses showed that the GPP anomaly in the spring of 2020 was explained by the balance between positive and negative impacts of biophysical drivers. GPP increased when the combined effects of enhanced SW_IN, increased air temperature and reduced pollutant concentrations overtook the negative impact of changes in VPD, SWC and Kd.

Acknowledgements. We would like to thank ICOS site investigators for sharing eddy covariance data.

co-authors:

Jiří Dušek (Department of Matter and Energy Fluxes, Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech), Damiano Gianelle (Department of Sustainable Agro-Ecosystems and Bioresources, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele all’Adige, Italy), Bernard Heinesch (TERRA Teaching and Research Centre, University of Liege, Gembloux, Belgium), Ivan Janssens (Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium), Natalia Kowalska (Department of Matter and Energy Fluxes, Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech), Marilyn Roland (Plants and Ecosystems, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium), Marius Schmidt (Institute of Bio- and Geosciences: Agrosphere (IBG-3), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany), Eeva-Stiina Tuittila (School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland), Andrej Varlagin (A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia), Tarek S. El-Madany (Department of Biogeochemical Integration, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany), Giacomo Gerosa (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Brescia, Italy), Meelis Mölder (Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden​​​​​​​), Andrea Pitacco (Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padua, Padua, Italy), Anne Klosterhalfen (Bioclimatology, Faculty of Forest Sciences, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany), Emilie Joetzjer (Université de Lorraine, AgroParisTech, INRAE, UMR Silva, Nancy, France), Katja Klumpp (UMR UREP, VetAgro Sup, INRAE, Clermont-Ferrand, France)

How to cite: Tang, A. C. I., Flechard, C., Simioni, G., Stoy, P. C., Fares, S., Cuntz, M., Šigut, L., Peichl, M., Mammarella, I., Buchmann, N., Berveiller, D., Douros, J., Timmermans, R., Rebmann, C., Knohl, A., Arriga, N., Taborski, T., Fu, Z., Nilsson, M., and Loustau, D. and the co-authors: Ecosystem gross primary productivity during the COVID-19 lockdown, EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-8155, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-8155, 2022.