Quantifying the threat from ozone pollution to food security ICP Vegetation – EMEP collaboration

1. 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

2. 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

3. Ozone indicators for 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

4. Health vs vegetation indicators, 2000 SOMO35 AOT40 Ozone flux (POD6)

5. Predicting impacts of ozone on food security Dose-response relationships from ozone-exposure experiments across Europe* Crops: wheat and tomato Maps of ozone flux (POD6) and crop production for 2000 National Emissions Scenario, current legislation used for 2000 and 2020 for EU27+CH+NO Models of ozone transfer to vegetation and uptake by stomata (DO3SE – EMEP model) Numbers represent “best estimates” * Mills et al, Atmospheric Environment (2011)

6. Quantifying impacts on wheat production Ozone flux (POD6) in 2000 Wheat production (2000) * Assumes adequate soil moisture

7. Economic losses for wheat in Europe 2000 2020 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 * Assumes adequate soil moisture available

8. Economic losses for wheat, highest 10 countries ICP VEGETATION

9. Effects on wheat in EU27+CH+NO, NAT scenario 1 In wheat-growing areas 2 Estimated for each grid square from the mean t/ha per country ICP VEGETATION

10. Quantifying impacts on Tomato production Ozone flux (POD6) in 2000 Tomato production (2000) *Irrigation assumed *squares with > 3 t production shown ICP VEGETATION

11. 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

12. Economic losses for Tomato, highest 10 countries ICP VEGETATION

13. Effects on Tomato in EU27+CH+NO, NAT scenario * Estimated for each grid square from the mean t/ha per country ICP VEGETATION

14. 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 O3data from EMEP to run the:: • DO3SE model • JULES model (Sitch et al., 2007. Nature) Increased radiative forcing by CO2 and O3 Less CO2 uptake O3 Less C in roots ICP VEGETATION

15. Future ICP Vegetation - EMEP Collaboration MSc-West We would benefit from: + 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 ICP VEGETATION

16. Future ICP Vegetation - EMEP Collaboration • 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) ICP VEGETATION

17. SPARES

18. 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.

19. AOT40-based economic impact assessment for wheat 2000 2020 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

20. Quantifying impacts on wheat Ozone flux (POD6) in 2000 AOT40 in 2000

21. Wheat yield loss in 2000 AOT40 POD6 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

22. Wheat: NAT Scenario, EU27+CH+NO * Indicative figures only

23. 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.

24. Flux method To predict impacts on food security we model ozone uptake by stomata using the Jarvis approach: 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