Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 604

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Isoprene and monoterpene emission rate variability: Observations with eucalyptus and emission rate algorithm development

Guenther, Alex B., Monson, Russell K., Fall, Ray·1991·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

Variability in the emission rates of isoprene and monoterpenes from individual leaves of Eucalyptus globulus was investigated with a laboratory gas exchange system and an environmental control leaf cuvette. For individual leaves, with constant environmental conditions, short‐term (1 hour) fluctuations in isoprene emission rates were less than 3% while day‐to‐day fluctuations averaged 14%. Leaf‐to‐leaf variations were much larger (62%). Fluctuations with time and leaf‐to‐leaf variability in CO 2 assimilation rates were of the same order as isoprene, while monoterpene variations were higher. Leaf age was identified as one of the factors contributing to leaf‐to‐leaf variability in CO 2 assimilation and isoprene and monoterpene emission rates. Monoterpene emission rates were not influenced by light intensity or CO 2 mixing ratio. The observed temperature dependence was the same for α‐pinene and 1,8‐cineole (an oxygenated monoterpene) and is similar to the temperature dependence of monoterpene emission rates reported by other investigators. Isoprene emissions were slightly dependent on humidity (1–3% increase in emission per 10% increase in relative humidity) and responded only to very low (<100 ppm) or very high (>600 ppm) CO 2 mixing ratios. Isoprene emission was associated with the abaxial leaf side, which contains stomatal pores, while monoterpenes were emitted primarily from the adaxial side, which lacks stomatal pores. The temperature and light dependence of isoprene emission closely resembles relationships observed for electron transport in plant chloroplasts. For this reason, we have used a mechanistic electron transport model as the basis for an empirical isoprene emission rate model. The emission rate variation predicted by this model was within 10% of observed values for 62% of the 255 observations at light‐saturated conditions and temperatures between 23° and 33°C. The entire data base includes over 600 observations at leaf temperatures ranging between 12° and 50°C and light intensities between 0 and 2000 μmol m−2 s−1. Nearly two thirds of the emission rates predicted for the entire data base were within a factor of 1.25, and 89% were within a factor of 2. The algorithms developed in this study provide a solid physiological basis for future efforts to model the biogenic flux of isoprene and monoterpenes into the atmosphere.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/91jd00960

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 604

Metadata

Authors
Guenther, A. B., Monson, R. K., & Fall, R.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
1991-06-20
Volume
96
Issue
D6
Pages
10799-10808
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062557772
Cited by
604
References
2
FWCI
11.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Isoprene and monoterpene emission rate variability: Observations with eucalyptus and emission rate algorithm development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/91jd00960
The paper
Guenther, A. B., Monson, R. K., & Fall, R. (1991). Isoprene and monoterpene emission rate variability: Observations with eucalyptus and emission rate algorithm development. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/91jd00960

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.