the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Potential of carbon uptake and local aerosol production in boreal and hemi-boreal ecosystems across Finland and in Estonia
Anna Lintunen
Pasi Kolari
Annalea Lohila
Santeri Tuovinen
Janne Lampilahti
Roseline Thakur
Maija Peltola
Otso Peräkylä
Tuomo Nieminen
Ekaterina Ezhova
Mari Pihlatie
Asta Laasonen
Markku Koskinen
Helena Rautakoski
Laura Heimsch
Tom Kokkonen
Aki Vähä
Ivan Mammarella
Steffen Noe
Jaana Bäck
Veli-Matti Kerminen
Markku Kulmala
Continental ecosystems play an important role in carbon dioxide (CO2) uptake and aerosol production, which help to mitigate climate change. The concept of “CarbonSink+ potential” enables a direct comparison of CO2 uptake and local aerosol production at the ecosystem scale. Following this concept, momentary net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and the number concentration of negative intermediate ions at 2.0–2.3 nm (Nneg) were analysed for boreal and hemi-boreal ecosystems across Finland and in Estonia. Nneg can tell us how effectively gaseous precursors associated with biogenic emissions from an ecosystem initiate the new particle formation. Four forests, three agricultural fields, an open peatland, an urban garden, and a coastal site were included, with a focus on the summertime. We compared the NEE and Nneg at each site to the boreal Hyytiälä forest (F-HYY) as it is constituted by the dominant ecosystem type in Finland. Nneg was highest at the urban garden site and lowest at the coastal site. The agricultural fields had higher or similar net CO2 uptake rates and higher Nneg than all studied forests. The median net CO2 uptake rate of the open peatland was only 31 % of that at F-HYY, while the median Nneg was 77 % of that at F-HYY. The median net CO2 uptake rate in the urban garden was 63 % of that at F-HYY, implying the importance of urban green areas in CO2 storage. The coastal site was a minor CO2 sink. It should be noted that the harvest biomass in agricultural fields is not accounted for in this study. Given the large area of forests in Finland, the forests are the most important ecosystems in terms of their CO2 uptake and local aerosol formation with regard to helping to mitigate climate warming.
- Article
(11190 KB) - Full-text XML
-
Supplement
(2045 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most abundant greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the most important cause of global warming (e.g. Jia et al., 2022). Terrestrial ecosystems play an essential role in the global CO2 budget through carbon uptake from the atmosphere by means of photosynthesis and its consequent sequestration to various pools (Walker et al., 2021; Friedlingstein et al., 2022). Globally, the net terrestrial ecosystem uptake of CO2 (i.e. the net carbon sink) is 3.1 Gt C yr−1, which accounts for 32 % of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (Friedlingstein et al., 2022). Terrestrial carbon sequestration, i.e. the process of storing carbon in a carbon pool (IPCC, 2022), takes place in both belowground and aboveground carbon storage (Walker et al., 2021, and the reference therein). Belowground storage includes soil carbon pools, while aboveground storage is primarily in the form of biomass. As a transition between land and open ocean, the coastal environment is identified as an import carbon sink and is estimated to take up 0.4 Gt C yr−1 (Regnier et al., 2022). Large spatiotemporal variations in continental CO2 uptake are assumed due to different ecosystem and land use types, climatic conditions, and management pathways (Chang et al., 2021; Friedlingstein et al., 2022). The challenge of increasing the carbon sequestration of ecosystems has been attracting more and more attention, with the global goal of reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Apart from acting as CO2 sinks, terrestrial ecosystems can influence climate by contributing to the formation of new aerosol particles (Kulmala et al., 2004; Kulmala et al., 2014; Kulmala et al., 2020; Yli-Juuti et al., 2021; Junninen et al., 2022; Petäjä et al., 2022, Räty et al., 2023). Globally, aerosols have been reported to induce a net climate cooling effect. The best estimate of the effective radiative forcing is −1.06 W m−2 (Jia et al., 2022). However, large uncertainties exist in the aerosol net radiative forcing estimation, tightly associated with the large spatiotemporal heterogeneity in its origin, number concentration, and chemical properties.
Atmospheric new particle formation (NPF) is an important source of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) (e.g. Gordon et al., 2017; Ren et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023) which contributes significantly to aerosol–cloud and aerosol–radiation interactions (Rosenfeld et al., 2014; Ezhova et al., 2018, Artaxo et al., 2022; Petäjä et al., 2022). NPF takes place frequently in many environments, such as forests, urban cities, and coastal areas (e.g. Kerminen et al., 2018; Nieminen et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2021). It has been reported that NPF is greatly enhanced due to the emission of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) in boreal forests and peatlands (Junninen et al., 2022; Petäjä et al., 2022). Notably, NPF events often take place regionally, extending over distances of up to over 1000 km (Kerminen et al., 2018). Multiple types of ecosystems may contribute to the NPF events in a region, depending, for example, on the diversity of land use types. It remains unclear whether and how various ecosystems differ in terms of their contributions to regional NPF and what the magnitude of such differences is.
To overcome the challenge of analysing the role of local ecosystems in regional aerosol formation, the concept of “CarbonSink+ potential” was recently established (Kulmala et al., 2024). CarbonSink+ potential enables a direct, ecosystem-scale comparison of CO2 uptake and the intensity of local intermediate ion formation (LIIF) in the atmosphere at the ecosystem scale. The LIIF can be approximated as the number concentration of negative intermediate ions in the 2.0–2.3 nm size range (Tuovinen et al., 2024) to which the aerosol formation in the 3–6 nm size range is proportional (Kulmala et al., 2024). The survival probability of small aerosol particles, which describes the probability of a single particle growing to a certain size without being scavenged, is generally high for particles from 6 nm to CCN size in rural and remote environments (Kulmala et al., 2024; Stolzenburg et al., 2023). The local contributions of certain ecosystems to regional aerosol formation can thus be quantified by LIIF.
This study utilized 1- to 10-year-long datasets of intermediate ion concentrations and CO2 fluxes from various boreal and hemi-boreal ecosystems across Finland and in Estonia. In summary, four forests, one open peatland, three agricultural fields, one urban garden, and one coastal site were investigated. The negative intermediate ion concentrations and CO2 fluxes for these ecosystems were compared during different seasons, with a focus on the summer. Based on the CarbonSink+ potential concept (Kulmala et al., 2024), the potential of these ecosystems to mitigate climate warming in relation to CO2 uptake and aerosol production is discussed.
2.1 Site description
In this study, various ecosystem types, including forests, open peatland, agricultural fields, coastal areas, and an urban garden were studied (Fig. 1; Table 1). All stations utilize the SMEAR (Station for Measuring Ecosystem–Atmosphere Relations; Hari and Kulmala, 2005) concept. The detailed location, ecosystem type, meteorological characteristics, and soil type for each site are presented in Table 1. SMEAR I in Värriö in northern Finland (F-VAR) and SMEAR II in Hyytiälä in southern Finland (F-HYY) are forest sites, both dominated by Scots pine (Kulmala et al., 2019; Neefjes et al., 2022), while the forests in Ränskälänkorpi (F-RAN) and at the SMEAR site in Estonia at Järvselja (F-JAR) are mixtures of coniferous and broadleaf trees (Table 1). While F-VAR and F-HYY are upland forests, i.e. growing on mineral soil, F-RAN is a drained-peatland forest (Laurila et al., 2021), and F-JAR has a mosaic of drained swamp, drained peat, and leached gleyic pseudo-podzols (Kangur et al., 2021; Noe et al., 2015). Two of the agricultural (SMEAR-Agri) sites, i.e. Haltiala (A-HAL), a cereal cropland, and Viikki (A-VII), a managed grassland which was renewed in 2023 with a cereal crop, are located in Helsinki. The third agricultural site, Qvidja (A-QVI), is a managed grassland located in southwestern Finland (Heimsch et al., 2021). The SMEAR II site at Siikaneva (P-SII) is an open, pristine peatland site ∼ 5 km southwest of F-HYY (Rinne et al., 2018). SMEAR III at Kumpula, Helsinki, is an urban background site. The University of Helsinki botanical garden and the city of Helsinki allotment garden are in the southwest of the SMEAR III station, characterized by a high fraction of vegetation (G-KUM; Järvi et al., 2012). The coastal site (C-TVA) is at Tvärminne Zoological Station, which is a 600 ha nature reserve at the entrance of the Gulf of Finland (northern Baltic Sea), southwestern Finland (Virtasalo et al., 2023). During the measurement period, the annual mean temperature for these sites ranged between 0.4 and 7.2 °C, while the annual precipitation ranged between 500 and 750 mm (Table 1). F-JAR, C-TVA, and A-QVI belong to hemi-boreal ecosystems, while the other ecosystems are boreal (Mäki et al., 2022).

Figure 1Land type distribution across Finland (Copernicus Global Land Service, 2020) and the studied sites, with their ecosystem type shown.
Table 1Meteorological and other main characteristics of the studied sites.

1 Neefjes et al. (2022). 2 Kulmala et al. (2019). 3 Laurila et al. (2021). 4 Noe et al. (2015). 5 Finnish Meteorology Institute – only data for the same calendar year of the selected period and for the same or nearby stations as NAIS and eddy covariance measurements were applied. 6 Heimsch et al. (2021). 7 Rinne et al. (2018) – data not available.
2.2 Atmospheric measurements: intermediate ions, CO2 flux, and meteorological parameters
The number concentration of ions and particles and the net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2 were measured using a neutral cluster and air ion spectrometer (NAIS, Airel Ltd; Mirme and Mirme, 2013) and an eddy covariance method (Aubinet et al., 1999), respectively. The meteorological data, e.g. air temperature, air humidity, and photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), were measured simultaneously at the same heights with the eddy covariance setup. If the meteorological measurement at the same height (Table S1 in the Supplement) was not available, it was replaced by the one from the next nearest height. The types of analysers and detectors used at each site are listed in Table S1.
The NAIS is capable of continuous monitoring of ion and total particle concentrations and size distributions over the diameter range of 0.8–42 nm. The ions can be divided into three different size ranges, namely small ions (also referred to as cluster ions) in the sub-2 nm size range, intermediate ions (2–7 nm), and large ions (>7 nm; Tammet et al., 2014). The time resolution was set to 5 min to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio (Mirme and Mirme, 2013). The data were quality-checked, considering, for example, the potential interference of rainfall and snow events in the measurements (Manninen et al., 2016). The ion and total particle number concentration were further averaged over half an hour. The inlets for the NAIS at all of the studies sites are 1–2 m a.g.l. (above ground level).
In this study, we identified the concentration of negative intermediate ions, specifically within the range of 2.0–2.3 nm (Nneg), as an indicator of the local intermediate ion formation (LIIF). It is important to note that the intensity of LIIF can serve as an estimate of the local contribution to the regional NPF (Kulmala et al., 2024). It has been observed that Nneg displays distinct differences between new particle formation and non-formation periods of intermediate ions (2–7 nm; Tuovinen et al., 2024), thereby making Nneg a reliable indicator of LIIF. Moreover, the measurement of negative intermediate ions between 2.0 and 2.3 nm by the NAIS provides a relatively high degree of accuracy, and the measurement footprints are constrained to be within the ecosystem scale when measured under the canopy (sub-1 km; Tuovinen et al., 2024; Kulmala et al., 2024). Moreover, the median values of Nneg between 00:00 and 06:00 LT (local time), i.e. outside the active hours of the ecosystem, were taken as the background concentration at each site. The background value of Nneg was calculated separately for each season. A narrower time window for background concentrations compared to the one proposed by Aliaga et al. (2023), namely 21:00–06:00 LT, was applied due to the more northern F-VAR, with a longer day length during the summer in this study. We then calculated the changes in Nneg (ΔNneg) by subtracting the background concentration during each season from Nneg. The diurnal variations in median ΔNneg were presented together with Nneg (Sect. 3). The use of ΔNneg was assumed to eliminate the influence of background clustering at different sites (Aliaga et al., 2023) such that it reflects the intensity of negative intermediate ion production from the specific ecosystem.
The eddy covariance measurement of CO2 fluxes is based on the turbulence theory, i.e. the assumption that the turbulent flux remains relatively stable in a constant flux layer above the canopy (Lee and Hu, 2002), and it is equal to the covariance of vertical wind speed and ambient CO2 concentration on flat and horizontally homogeneous surfaces (Aubinet et al., 1999). The fluxes were measured above the ecosystem canopies and below 30 m. The detailed measurement height for each site is listed in Table S1. The measurement system requires a fast-response analyser of the CO2 concentration (10 Hz) and a 3-D sonic anemometer. The raw eddy covariance 10 Hz data were pre-processed with standard steps, including despiking, detrending, dilution correction, and 2-D coordinate rotation (Aubinet et al., 1999). The fluxes were further lag-time-adjusted and corrected for spectral loss (Aubinet et al., 1999). Either EddyUH (Mammarella et al., 2016) or EddyPro (Fratini and Mauder, 2014) or the programme introduced by Heimsch et al. (2021) was applied for the pre-processing for one site. The processed fluxes were accepted only if they met the stationarity and developed turbulence criterion (Foken and Wichura, 1996), exceeding the site-specific friction velocity thresholds (Table S1). The quality-checked CO2 fluxes at the forest sites were further partitioned into gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (R) using the site-specific dependence of R on the air and/or soil temperature and of GPP on the PPFD and air and/or soil temperature (Kulmala et al., 2019).
2.3 Data selection criteria
In this study, the analyses were restricted to periods when both negative intermediate ion concentration and NEE were available (Table 1). Therefore, different time periods were applied for each of the different sites. For F-HYY, F-VAR, F-JAR, F-QVI, P-SII, and G-KUM, the long-term data were available for more than 3 years. At F-HYY, 12 years of continuous observations were used. For the sites with recently established atmospheric measurements, namely C-TVA, F-RAN, A-HAL, and A-VII, data were available for approximately 1 to 1.5 years. In total, 35 site years of data were utilized in this study. As we focused on the potential of the ecosystem to take up CO2 and form intermediate ions, the inter-annual variation at the sites was not discussed in this study (Kulmala et al., 2019; Alekseychik et al., 2021; Heimsch et al., 2021).
F-HYY had the longest data recordings (Table 1) among the 10 sites and received relatively little anthropogenic pollution (Neefjes et al., 2022). Due to the thinning of F-HYY in the beginning of the year 2020, when 40 % of tree basal area was removed (Aalto et al., 2023), data from that year were discarded from the analyses to exclude the immediate thinning effect on the studied variables. At F-RAN, the western part of the site was selectively harvested (∼ 60 % of basal area removed), and the eastern part of the site was clear-cut in the spring and summer of 2021, with a control site left in the middle. The NAIS equipment was positioned on the border between the control and clear-out, ∼ 230 m east from the eddy covariance tower (measurement height of 29 m). The eddy covariance tower was on the border between the control and selectively harvested plots. In this study, only data with wind blowing from the area after selective harvesting from the west (WD > 180°) and with wind speed above 2 m s−1 were considered. Note that carbon removed from the site in harvested tree biomass is not accounted for in the measured flux of CO2. At G-KUM, data from the garden area, i.e. 180–320°, were applied. The vegetation varied largely, from broadleaf forests to gardens (Järvi et al., 2012).
At the agricultural sites, the management activity is relatively intense and can distinctly influence the CO2 fluxes (Heimsch et al., 2021). Note that the carbon removed in harvested crop biomass and the carbon added to the site in fertilizers do not directly contribute to the measured net flux of CO2. For A-QVI, NAIS and eddy covariance data from wind directions of 30 to 140° were discarded due to another separated experimental plot located in that part of the field (Heimsch et al., 2021). Also, the data were discarded when the flux footprint was not sufficiently representative of the target grassland (Heimsch et al., 2021). Similarly, at A-VII, only measurements from wind directions between 145 and 245° were included in the analysis to avoid data from other nearby fields with different vegetation and management activities. A-QVI was harvested in June and August, A-VII was harvested twice in August during the reported period, and A-HAL was harvested once only at the end of the growing season during the measurement periods. The sowing (over-seeding for A-QVI and only in 2022) and first fertilization in the year usually take place at the end of spring.
The open peatland at P-SII is surrounded by forests. However, 80 % of the CO2 flux footprint is within ∼ 150 m from the measurement tower, i.e. constrained within the peatland (Alekseychik et al., 2021). At C-TVA, the NAIS instrument trailer is on the shore, and the eddy covariance mast is on an island, ∼ 110 m east of the shore. Only data with wind directions from 95 to 165° and from 205 to 240°, i.e. from the coastal water without being disturbed by trees on nearby islands, were included in the analysis at this site.
3.1 Comparison of momentary NEE in different ecosystems
The diurnal variations in NEE between the studied forests, urban garden area, agricultural fields, open peatland, and coastal site in spring (MAM) and summer (JJA) are presented in Figs. 2–4. The corresponding comparisons with autumn (SON) and winter (DJF) are presented in Figs. S1–S3.
For the forest sites, the hemi-boreal F-JAR tended to have the highest net CO2 uptake rate (absolute values of NEE when it is negative) at midday (10:00–14:00 LT) in both spring and summer. The median net CO2 uptake rate at midday at F-JAR reached 12 µmol m−2 s−1 in summer. The lowest net CO2 uptake rate at midday was found at the most northern F-VAR, with the median being 4.69 µmol m−2 s−1. This difference may be due to the 6–8 °C higher air temperature in the hemi-boreal Estonian forest and the lower temperature at F-VAR (Fig. S4) as the ecosystem productivity at high latitudes in Europe is typically temperature limited (Yi et al., 2010).
In summer, the net CO2 uptake rate in the urban garden area at G-KUM was comparable with the drained-peatland forest at F-RAN. The vegetation fraction at G-KUM is relatively high (0.44). During summertime, the strong photosynthesis dominated the changes in CO2 fluxes, inducing a net CO2 uptake in the garden section (Järvi et al., 2012). In the other seasons, the urban garden area was a net source of CO2 most of the time (Figs. 2 and S1), similarly to the results previously reported for the years 2006–2010 from the same site (Järvi et al., 2012). There are residential buildings and traffic within the eddy covariance measurement footprint at G-KUM. The CO2 emissions from the residential buildings, traffic, and soils outweighed photosynthetic uptake of CO2, except during the daytime in summer.

Figure 2The 50th percentile (a), 25th percentile (b), and mean values (c) of NEE at each hour for the forest sites and urban garden in spring (MAM) and the corresponding 50th percentile (d), 25th percentile (e), and mean values (f) in summer (JJA).
In the case of agricultural fields in summer (Fig. 3), the A-HAL and A-VII croplands had 2–5 µmol m−2 s−1 (for the median values at midday) higher momentary net CO2 uptake rate than A-VII. Notably, in spring, the croplands at A-VII and A-HAL were net sources of CO2, while A-QVI was a CO2 sink during the daytime, with an uptake rate comparable to that at F-HYY (ranging between 0 and 4 µmol m−2 s−1). The different plant species (Table 1) and management activities between the agricultural fields are likely to have caused the differences in their seasonal CO2 fluxes. During the measurement period, perennial grass species were grown at A-QVI, while the growth of the annual crops at A-HAL and A-VII relied on the sowing and fertilization date, normally at the end of spring. This may explain the springtime CO2 emission at A-HAL and A-VII. In the summer, A-HAL and A-VII were harvested only in August, while A-QVI was harvested in June and August separately, which may explain the higher CO2 uptake rate at A-HAL and A-VII. The upper quartile of the momentary net CO2 uptake, i.e. absolute values of 25th percentile NEE, was 62 % higher at A-HAL than that at F-HYY in summer. The midday momentary net CO2 uptake rate at A-VII was 17 % higher than that at F-HYY, while that at A-QVI was 30 % lower than that at F-HYY. It is also important to note that the harvests of plant biomass decreased local carbon storage, which was not accounted for in the measured CO2 fluxes. In the studied agricultural fields, the harvest was conducted once or twice every year, whereas the typical rotation lengths in managed boreal areas are 60–100 years in southern Finland.

Figure 3The 50th percentile (a), 25th percentile (b), and mean values (c) of NEE at each hour for the agricultural fields in spring (MAM) and the corresponding 50th percentile (d), 25th percentile (e), and mean values (f) in summer (JJA).
The CO2 uptake rate and respiration rate (nighttime CO2 fluxes) in the open peatland (P-SII) and coastal area (C-TVA) (Fig. 4) were distinctly lower than those in the agricultural fields and forests during spring and summer. Still, the P-SII remained a net sink of CO2 during the daytime in all the seasons except for winter. The midday NEE values at C-TVA were −0.25 and −0.01 µmol m−2 s−1 in spring and summer, respectively. Hence, stronger net CO2 uptake possibly appears in spring in this Baltic coastal area under certain conditions, i.e. when the partial pressure of CO2 in the water is lower than that in the air (Roth et al., 2023). This may be induced by fast growth of phytoplankton and submerged vegetation in the spring (Roth et al., 2023).

Figure 4The 50th percentile (a), 25th percentile (b), and mean values (c) of NEE at each hour for the peatland and coastal area in spring (MAM) and the corresponding 50th percentile (d), 25th percentile (e), and mean values (f) in summer (JJA).
Additionally, F-RAN and F-JAR turned into a CO2 source 1–2 h earlier in the late afternoon during summer than the other two forests (Fig. 2). Note that the soil at F-RAN and F-JAR is mainly drained peatland and water-logged soil (Table 1), respectively, which is indicated by a high organic carbon content (Laurila et al., 2021; Noe et al., 2015). The elevated air temperature (Fig. S4) and increased soil organic carbon content may contribute to the enhanced respiration at the two sites, which is reflected in the nighttime fluxes (Fig. 2). Hence, even though the GPP values at F-JAR and F-RAN in the late afternoon were close to that at F-HYY (Fig. 5), net emissions of CO2, i.e. positive NEE values, were observed at these two forest sites in the earlier and later hours of the day.
3.2 Comparison of negative intermediate ion concentrations across different ecosystems
The comparisons of Nneg between different ecosystems in spring and summer are presented in Figs. 6–8. It was assumed that negative intermediate ions at 2.0–2.3 nm can describe how efficiently the ecosystem can produce new aerosol particles (Kulmala et al., 2024; Tuovinen et al., 2024). The corresponding values of Nneg in autumn and winter were only 16 %–84 % of those in spring and summer (Figs. S5–S7). The Nneg values in the daytime during spring were significantly higher than those in the summer at A-HAL and G-KUM (Mann–Whitney U test based on daily medians, P<0.05). At F-VAR, F-HYY, and F-RAN, the median values in summer were significantly higher than those in spring (P<0.05). For other sites, the difference was not significant (P>0.05). In contrast, the difference between the 75th and 50th percentiles of Nneg in spring was higher than that in summer at all the studied sites except F-VAR and C-TVA. The larger upper-quartile deviation of Nneg in spring implied that the LIIF processes were either more frequent or stronger in spring than in summer at all the sites except F-VAR and C-TVA (Dada et al., 2018; Nieminen et al., 2018).
For all the sites, the diurnal variation in negative intermediate ions in spring and summer was clear, except for C-TVA in spring, i.e. a distinct peak during the daytime. In the winter, the diurnal cycle of Nneg was not visible at any of the studied sites (Figs. S6–S8). This agrees with the observation that the global radiation and air temperature are observed to correlate positively with the concentration of negative intermediate ions at 2–4 nm at F-HYY (Neefjes et al., 2022).

Figure 6The 50th percentile (a) and 75th percentile (b) of negative intermediate ions (Nneg) at 2.0–2.3 nm (Nneg) at each hour and the daily fluctuations of Nneg (c) for the forests and urban garden in spring (MAM) and the corresponding 50th percentile (d), 75th percentile (e), and normalized concentration for median values (f) in summer (JJA).

Figure 7The 50th (a) and 75th percentile (b) of negative intermediate ions (Nneg) at 2.0–2.3 nm at each hour and the daily fluctuations of Nneg (c) for the agricultural fields in spring (MAM) and the corresponding 50th percentile (d), 75th percentile (e), and normalized concentration for median values (f) in summer (JJA).

Figure 8The 50th percentile (a) and 75th percentile (b) of negative intermediate ions (Nneg) at 2.0–2.3 nm at each hour and the daily fluctuations of Nneg (c) for the peatland and coastal area in spring (MAM) and the corresponding 50th percentile (d), 75th percentile (e), and normalized concentration for median values (f) in summer (JJA).
The daily fluctuations of Nneg (ΔNneg) were calculated by subtracting the background concentration from Nneg in each season (Sect. 2.2). In spring, median ΔNneg at midday for the forests ranged between 0.8 and 2.0 cm−3 (Table S2), with the lowest value at F-JAR and the highest value at F-HYY. The midday mean ΔNneg at G-KUM was 4.9 cm−3, which was 2–7 times that in the studied forests. The presence of more abundant nucleation precursors at G-KUM may facilitate the ion formation (Nieminen et al., 2018). Seasonal changes in the clustering precursors and their dependence on air temperature and radiation may drive the seasonal variation in ΔNneg at all of the sites.
It is notable that, generally, the agricultural sites had higher midday ΔNneg than the forest sites in spring, varying between 2.3 and 7.7 cm−3. The application of fertilizers is known to increase the atmospheric concentration of ammonia (NH3) remarkably in agricultural fields, e.g. as observed at A-QVI (Olin et al., 2022). NH3 can stabilize the critical clusters in the nucleation process driven by sulfuric acid (H2SO4). H2SO4 in the air is formed majorly by oxidation of sulfur dioxide, which can be transported over a longer range than the intermediate ions. However, the frequency of NPF events was found not to increase after the fertilization at A-QVI (Dada et al., 2023). Similarly, the frequency of daytime NPF events did not correlate with agriculture activities in a cropland in France (Kammer et al., 2023). Dada et al. (2023) observed that NH3, H2SO4, and low volatile organic compounds originating from BVOC oxidation play a synergistic role in clustering at A-QVI, resulting in a 7–57-times and 2–16-times higher formation rate and number concentration of particles, respectively, than at F-HYY. Note that, since the A-HAL and A-VII croplands are located in Helsinki, the nucleation precursors and, thereby, the nucleation rate may be enhanced by anthropogenic pollution in the city. The exact reasons why there were higher Nneg and ΔNneg rates at these agricultural sites require exploration through more measurements of the clustering precursors.
Furthermore, in spring and summer, the nighttime Nneg increased again at around 20:00 LT for all the sites, suggesting a ubiquitous nighttime clustering in warm seasons (Mazon et al., 2016). However, these nighttime-clustered negative ions are likely to be unable to grow >3 nm in diameter (Mazon et al., 2016). Moreover, in summer, the 75th percentile of nighttime Nneg at A-VII was comparable with the daytime Nneg. The decreased boundary layer height (Chen et al., 2016; Neefjes et al., 2022), especially during clear nights, may also facilitate the accumulation of formed clusters and eventually lead to the nighttime peak.
3.3 Potential of different ecosystems to contribute to CO2 uptake and negative intermediate ion production
Since we aimed to compare the potential of ecosystems for net CO2 uptake and local production of negative intermediate ions (LIIF), the most active periods for the ecosystem plants are discussed in detail in this section, i.e. midday in summertime. The potential of the studied ecosystems for net CO2 uptake and LIIF at midday during summertime is listed in Table 2. The values of NEE and Nneg at F-HYY were also used as references to which NEE and Nneg at all other sites were compared (Table 2). For median values in summer, Nneg was found to be highest in the urban garden, followed by the agricultural fields (Fig. 9). The agricultural fields generally had higher Nneg than the studied forests, and the open peatland (P-SII) had 23 % lower Nneg than F-HYY but 15 %–46 % higher Nneg than the other forests. The Nneg at the coastal area was the lowest. The momentary net CO2 uptake rate at midday in summer was highest in agricultural fields, followed by the forests. The urban garden in this study displayed distinct net CO2 uptake which was 37 % lower than in the forests and ∼ 2 times that in the open peatland. The coastal area at midday in summer was a very weak CO2 sink. In the urban garden area at G-KUM, the median Nneg was double that at F-HYY, while the median NEE only reached 63 % of that at F-HYY.
The variations in momentary NEE and Nneg were distinct, even between similar types of ecosystems at a similar latitude (Sect. 3.1 and 3.2), e.g. within forests and agricultural fields. For forests, the most southern F-JAR had the highest net CO2 uptake rate, while the median Nneg at midday in summer was similar to that at F-RAN and 53 % of that at F-HYY. F-HYY had higher Nneg than the other forests. For agricultural sites, the net CO2 uptake rates at A-VII and A-HAL were close to that at F-HYY, while they were 30 % lower at A-QVI than at F-HYY. On the contrary, the Nneg values were highest at A-QVI between the three agricultural sites, and the median Nneg values of the other two croplands were 12 %–19 % smaller than at F-HYY.
Multiple factors can cause the differences in NEE and Nneg across the sites despite the similar seasonal and diurnal variation patterns. The CO2 uptake rate at midday in summer increased with an increasing air temperature in both studied forests and agricultural fields (Fig. 9). Moreover, the CO2 uptake rate at midday in summer increased with leaf area index (LAI) across the studied forest ecosystems (Table 1 and Fig. S9). As F-RAN was selectively harvested (Sect. 2.3), the leaf area was decreased, which can result in a lower CO2 uptake rate than in other forests under similar air temperature and PPFD conditions. Additionally, the peat soil at F-JAR and F-RAN can induce higher respiration (Fig. 2). Hence, even though the LAI and air temperature at F-JAR were, respectively, 23 % and 10 % higher than at F-HYY, the NEE at F-JAR was only 4 % lower than that at F-HYY. In the agricultural fields, the LAI and air temperature were comparable or higher than in the forests, which may explain the high momentary CO2 uptake rate at midday during summer in the agricultural fields.
In the case of Nneg, the precursor of aerosol production largely influences Nneg. The trends of Nneg varying with air temperature and radiation were not evident (Figs. 9 and S9). H2SO4 formation can drive the nucleation process and is influenced by the sulfur dioxide concentration and radiation. As the garden area and agricultural fields in this study are located in or nearby cities, the SO2 concentration there may be enhanced due to the anthropogenic pollution and its long-range transport. Also, the terpene emissions can initiate NPF, which has been observed in Siikaneva peatland and has led to stronger NPF there than that at F-HYY (Junninen et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2024). However, these events were reported to occur mostly in the late evening. Different plant species can emit different types of BVOCs (Guenther et al., 2012); e.g. monoterpenes are found to be dominant in coniferous forests, and isoprenes are dominant in broadleaf forests. The oxidation products of monoterpenes can enhance aerosol formation and growth (Rose et al., 2018), while isoprene has been reported to inhibit new particle formation (Kiendler-Scharr et al., 2009). As birch species are mixed with coniferous species at F-JAR, the possibly higher isoprene emission than in the other three predominantly coniferous forests may partially explain the lower Nneg at F-JAR. Moreover, the enhanced NH3 in agricultural fields can play a synergistic role with both H2SO4 and low volatile organic compounds in clustering (Dada et al., 2023), which may explain the generally high Nneg in the three studied agricultural fields.
Overall, our results showed that agricultural fields have the highest potential to contribute to momentary CO2 uptake and aerosol formation, affected by their vegetation and management practises. However, carbon inputs from fertilization and removal through harvested biomass in agricultural fields, which were not considered in our study, can lead to net carbon emissions in the annual carbon budgets (Heimsch et al., 2021, and references therein). Moreover, forests are the dominant landscape in Finland, covering ∼ 9 times the area of agricultural fields (Table 2). Considering their large area, boreal forests in Finland are very likely to be the largest contributor to climate cooling when considering the CO2 uptake and local new particle formation.

Figure 9Comparison of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and negative intermediate ions at 2.0–2.3 nm (a), NEE and air temperature (b), and negative intermediate ions at 2.0–2.3 nm and air temperature (c) across different sites. The dots represent median values at midday during summer (10:00–14:00 LT). Error bars indicate the 10th and 25th percentiles for NEE and the 75th and 90th percentiles for negative intermediate ions and air temperature, reflecting the CO2 uptake rate and aerosol formation under optimal conditions.
Table 2Comparison of NEE and negative intermediate ions within the 2.0–2.3 nm size range across the hemi-boreal and boreal ecosystems at midday (10:00–14:00 LT) in summer. The errors for the median Nneg and NEE are the standard deviation of their values across all of the available years.

a Natural Resources Institute Finland (2022). b The area of oligotrophic open fens (Turunen and Valpola, 2020) – data not available.
3.4 Research limitations
In our study, data covering only 1 year were applied to the stations with newly established atmospheric measurements, i.e. A-VII, although the measurements are continuing. The inter-annual variation in NEE has been widely observed across sites, e.g. F-HYY (Neefjes et al., 2022) and A-QVI (Heimsch et al., 2021), possibly due to annual changes in temperature and precipitation. In the reported year at A-VII, the air temperature was higher than that during 2015–2020 (Finnish Meteorological Institute, 2024; Fig. S8). Since a higher air temperature can simultaneously increase the respiration and photosynthesis in an ecosystem, the influence of increased air temperature on the net CO2 flux, i.e. NEE, is quite site-specific. More observation years are needed to reduce the estimation errors of NEE. Compared with NEE, the inter-annul variation in Nneg at midday during summer fluctuated at a small magnitude across years (Table 2). Hence, the measured Nneg in the reported year can be considered to be relatively representative of the local aerosol production at the site. Moreover, the Nneg may originate from areas (sub-1 km; Tuovinen et al., 2024) larger than the ecosystem coverage, e.g. the agricultural sites within a radius of 500 m, leading to unavoidable uncertainties in the results.
Another potent greenhouse gas, methane (CH4), can be emitted through microbial activities under anoxic conditions, e.g. peatlands and coastal areas (Mathijssen et al., 2022; Roth et al., 2023). Considering the fact that CH4 has a sustained-flux global warming potential 45 times that of CO2 over 100 years (Roth et al., 2023, and the reference therein), the net CO2 equivalent emission of CH4 is estimated to be 2.5–8.6 times that of CO2 uptake at P-SII (Mathijssen et al., 2022). CH4 emissions may largely compensate for the CO2 uptake in open and non-ditched peatlands. Similarly, the emission of CH4 from coastal environments around the Baltic Sea may offset 28 % of the CO2 sink in macroalgae-dominated coastal areas (Roth et al., 2023). For ions, the summertime midday median Nneg at P-SII was 77 % of that at F-HYY (Table 2). As the open peatland is surrounded by forest within 1 km, the negative ion at 2.0–2.3 nm may be influenced by nearby forests.
Additionally, the albedo varies between each ecosystem type due to variations in vegetation cover (Peräkylä et al., 2025). Our research focused on the potential of different ecosystems for momentary CO2 uptake and local aerosol production, thus omitting the albedo impact. Further research is still needed to evaluate the total climate impacts at the ecosystem level, including other greenhouse gas emissions and/or uptake, albedo, carbon input from fertilization (for agricultural fields), and biomass harvests.
The CarbonSink+ potential concept was established recently and provides a direct comparison of local contributions to CO2 uptake and aerosol formation at the ecosystem scale. The value of negative intermediate ion concentrations within the 2.0–2.3 nm size range (Nneg) was applied as an indicator of the corresponding contribution of each ecosystem to producing new aerosol particles which, after their subsequent growth to larger sizes, are able to cool the atmosphere at a regional scale. Following this concept, net ecosystem CO2 exchange fluxes (NEE) and Nneg were analysed in 10 hemi-boreal and boreal ecosystems in Finland and Estonia.
The results showed that the agricultural fields had similar or even 15 % higher CO2 uptake potential compared to F-HYY during the summer at midday, possibly due to the high leaf area index and air temperature in the agricultural fields. A distinct CO2 uptake in the urban garden at midday in summer was observed, resulting from the strong photosynthesis of vegetation within the site. The uptake rate was 37 % lower than that at F-HYY but ∼ 2 times of that in the open peatland. The coastal area considered in this study remained a very small CO2 sink during summertime. The differences in Nneg between the studied sites were not as large as those in NEE. Ubiquitous nighttime clustering was observed across the terrestrial ecosystems. At midday in summer, Nneg was highest in the urban garden, followed by the agricultural fields. The coastal area had the lowest Nneg. The forest sites generally had lower Nneg than the agricultural sites. In agricultural fields, the synergetic role of NH3, H2SO4, and low volatile organic compounds originating from BVOC oxidation may generally play a synergistic role in clustering and induce a high Nneg when compared with other ecosystem types. The Nneg in the open peatland was 23 % lower than that at F-HYY but 14 %–46 % higher than that at other studied forests. Note that the urban garden and agricultural sites in Helsinki might be more influenced by air pollution compared to the forests and open peatland that were receiving little anthropogenic interference and pollution. The agricultural fields present the highest potential to contribute to momentary CO2 uptake and aerosol formation. However, it should be noted that the carbon in fertilization inputs and harvested biomass in agricultural fields were not included in this study. Overall, considering the large area of forests in Finland and Estonia, the forests, in total, are the largest contributors to climate cooling in terms of their CO2 uptake and local new particle formation.
Measurement data from the sites, including ion data, eddy covariance data, and meteorological data, will be available upon request from the corresponding author before the relevant databases are made open to the public.
The supplement related to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3235-2025-supplement.
ST, JL, and RT were responsible for the ion measurements. PS, AL, MP, AL, MK, HR, LH, AV, IM, and SN were responsible for the eddy covariance measurements and analysed the raw data. MK designed the study. PKe, AL, PKo, TN, OP, EE, TK, JB, VMK, and MK analysed the data and interpreted the results. PKe prepared the first draft of the paper. All of the authors contributed to the discussion of the results and provided input for the paper.
The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.
Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors.
We express our gratitude to the technical and scientific staff at all measurement sites for their invaluable contributions. We also acknowledge institutional support from the following projects and infrastructures: the ACCC Flagship initiative funded by the Academy of Finland; the Academy Professorship programme; the Strategic Research Council; the “Gigacity” project sponsored by the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation; the European Research Council (ERC) ATM-GTP initiative; the FOCI consortium (Non-CO2 Forcers and their Climate, Weather, Air Quality and Health Impacts); the University of Helsinki's ACTRIS-HY framework; SMEAR Estonia; and the INAR RI, ICOS RI, ACTRIS RI, and eLTER RI research infrastructures.
This work has been supported by the Academy of Finland through grant nos. 337549, 337552, 302958, 1325656, 311932, 334792, 316114, 325647, 325681, 339489, 352431, and 347782; the European Union via the NextGenerationEU instrument (grant no. PRG 347782), the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme (grant agreement no. 871115 for ACTRIS IMP), the ERC Advanced Grant ATM-GTP 742206, and the FOCI initiative; the Estonian Research Council (grant no. 1674); the Estonian Environmental Investment Centre (project no. 18392); and philanthropic foundations including the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation and the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation.
Open-access funding was provided by the Helsinki University Library.
This paper was edited by Akihiko Ito and reviewed by two anonymous referees.
Aalto, J., Anttila, V., Kolari, P., Korpela, I., Isotalo, A., Levula, J., Schiestl-Aalto, P., and Bäck, J.: Hyytiälä SMEAR II Forest year 2020 thinning tree and carbon inventory data, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7639833, 2023.
Alekseychik, P., Korrensalo, A., Mammarella, I., Launiainen, S., Tuittila, E.-S., Korpela, I., and Vesala, T.: Carbon balance of a Finnish bog: temporal variability and limiting factors based on 6 years of eddy-covariance data, Biogeosciences, 18, 4681–4704, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4681-2021, 2021.
Aliaga, D., Tuovinen, S., Zhang, T., Lampilahti, J., Li, X., Ahonen, L., Kokkonen, T., Nieminen, T., Hakala, S., Paasonen, P., Bianchi, F., Worsnop, D., Kerminen, V.-M., and Kulmala, M.: Nanoparticle ranking analysis: determining new particle formation (NPF) event occurrence and intensity based on the concentration spectrum of formed (sub-5 nm) particles, Aerosol Research, 1, 81–92, https://doi.org/10.5194/ar-1-81-2023, 2023.
Artaxo, P., Hansson, H.-C., Andreae, M. O., Bäck, J., Alves, E. G., Barbosa, H. M. J., Bender, F., Bourtsoukidis, E., Carbone, S., Chi, J., Decesari, S., Després, V. R., Ditas, F., Ezhova, E., Fuzzi, S., Hasselquist, N. J., Heintzenberg, J., Holanda, B. A., Guenther, A., Hakola, H., Heikkinen, L., Kerminen, V.-M., Kontkanen, J., Krejci, R., Kulmala, M., Lavric, J. V., De Leeuw, G., Lehtipalo, K., Machado, L. A. T., McFiggans, G., Franco, M. A. M., Meller, B. B., Morais, F. G., Mohr, C., Morgan, W., Nilsson, M. B., Peichl, M., Petäjä, T., Praß, M., Pöhlker, C., Pöhlker, M. L., Pöschl, U., Von Randow, C., Riipinen, I., Rinne, J., Rizzo, L. V., Rosenfeld, D., Silva Dias, M. A. F., Sogacheva, L., Stier, P., Swietlicki, E., Sörgel, M., Tunved, P., Virkkula, A., Wang, J., Weber, B., Yáñez-Serrano, A. M., Zieger, P., Mikhailov, E., Smith, J. N., and Kesselmeier, J.: Tropical and Boreal Forest – Atmosphere Interactions: A Review, Tellus B, 74, 24–162, https://doi.org/10.16993/tellusb.34, 2022.
Aubinet, M., Grelle, A., Ibrom, A., Rannik, Ü., Moncrieff, J., Foken, T., Kowalski, A. S., Martin, P. H., Berbigier, P., Bernhofer, C., Clement, R., Elbers, J., Granier, A., Grünwald, T., Morgenstern, K., Pilegaard, K., Rebmann, C., Snijders, W., Valentini, R., and Vesala, T.: Estimates of the Annual Net Carbon and Water Exchange of Forests: The EUROFLUX Methodology, in: Advances in Ecological Research, edited by: Fitter, A. H. and Raffaelli, D. G., Academic Press, 113–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60018-5, 1999.
Chang, J. F., Ciais, P., Gasser, T., Smith, P., Herrero, M., Havlik, P., Obersteiner, M., Guenet, B., Goll, D. S., Li, W., Naipal, V., Peng, S. S., Qiu, C. J., Tian, H. Q., Viovy, N., Yue, C., and Zhu, D.: Climate warming from managed grasslands cancels the cooling effect of carbon sinks in sparsely grazed and natural grasslands, Nat. Commun., 12, 118, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20406-7, 2021.
Chen, X., Kerminen, V.-M., Paatero, J., Paasonen, P., Manninen, H. E., Nieminen, T., Petäjä, T., and Kulmala, M.: How do air ions reflect variations in ionising radiation in the lower atmosphere in a boreal forest?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 14297–14315, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-14297-2016, 2016.
Copernicus Global Land Service: Land Cover 2018 (raster 100 m), global, yearly – version 3, https://land.copernicus.eu/en/products/global-dynamic-land-cover/copernicus-global-land-service-land-cover-100m-collection-3-epoch-2018-globe (last access: 13 July 2023), 2020.
Dada, L., Chellapermal, R., Buenrostro Mazon, S., Paasonen, P., Lampilahti, J., Manninen, H. E., Junninen, H., Petäjä, T., Kerminen, V.-M., and Kulmala, M.: Refined classification and characterization of atmospheric new-particle formation events using air ions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17883–17893, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17883-2018, 2018.
Dada, L., Okuljar, M., Shen, J., Olin, M., Heimsch, L., Wu, Y., Baalbaki, R., Lampimäki, M., Kankaanrinta, S., Herlin, I., Kalliokoski, J., Lohila, A., Petäjä, T., Dal Maso, M., Duplissy, J., Kerminen, V.-M., and Kulmala, M.: Synergistic role of sulfuric acid, ammonia and organics in particle formation over an agricultural land, Environ. Sci. Atmos., 3, 1195–1211, https://doi.org/10.1039/d3ea00065f, 2023.
Ezhova, E., Ylivinkka, I., Kuusk, J., Komsaare, K., Vana, M., Krasnova, A., Noe, S., Arshinov, M., Belan, B., Park, S.-B., Lavrič, J. V., Heimann, M., Petäjä, T., Vesala, T., Mammarella, I., Kolari, P., Bäck, J., Rannik, Ü., Kerminen, V.-M., and Kulmala, M.: Direct effect of aerosols on solar radiation and gross primary production in boreal and hemiboreal forests, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17863–17881, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17863-2018, 2018.
Finnish Meteorological Institute: Download observations, https://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/download-observations (last access: 26 February 2024), 2024.
Foken, T. and Wichura, B.: Tools for quality assessment of surface-based flux measurements, Agric. For. Meteorol., 78, 83–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(95)02248-1, 1996.
Fratini, G. and Mauder, M.: Towards a consistent eddy-covariance processing: an intercomparison of EddyPro and TK3, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 2273–2281, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2273-2014, 2014.
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Bittig, H. C., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gkritzalis, T., Gloege, L., Grassi, G., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Jersild, A., Kadono, K., Kato, E., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lindsay, K., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGrath, M. J., Metzl, N., Monacci, N. M., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K., Ono, T., Palmer, P. I., Pan, N., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rodriguez, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Shutler, J. D., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, X., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., Walker, A. P., Wanninkhof, R., Whitehead, C., Willstrand Wranne, A., Wright, R., Yuan, W., Yue, C., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2022, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022.
Gordon, H., Kirkby, J., Baltensperger, U., Bianchi, F., Breitenlechner, M., Curtius, J., Dias, A., Dommen, J., Donahue, N. M., Dunne, E. M., Duplissy, J., Ehrhart, S., Flagan, R. C., Frege, C., Fuchs, C., Hansel, A., Hoyle, C. R., Kulmala, M., Kürten, A., Lehtipalo, K., Makhmutov, V., Molteni, U., Rissanen, M. P., Stozkhov, Y., Tröstl, J., Tsagkogeorgas, G., Wagner, R., Williamson, C., Wimmer, D., Winkler, P. M., Yan, C., and Carslaw, K. S.: Causes and importance of new particle formation in the present-day and preindustrial atmospheres, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 8739–8760, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026844, 2017.
Guenther, A. B., Jiang, X., Heald, C. L., Sakulyanontvittaya, T., Duhl, T., Emmons, L. K., and Wang, X.: The Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature version 2.1 (MEGAN2.1): an extended and updated framework for modeling biogenic emissions, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 1471–1492, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1471-2012, 2012.
Hari, P. and Kulmala, M.: Station for Measuring Ecosystem-At mosphere Relations (SMEAR II), Boreal Environ. Res., 10, 315–322, 2005.
Heimsch, L., Lohila, A., Tuovinen, J.-P., Vekuri, H., Heinonsalo, J., Nevalainen, O., Korkiakoski, M., Liski, J., Laurila, T., and Kulmala, L.: Carbon dioxide fluxes and carbon balance of an agricultural grassland in southern Finland, Biogeosciences, 18, 3467–3483, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3467-2021, 2021.
Huang, W., Junninen, H., Garmash, O., Lehtipalo, K., Stolzenburg, D., Lampilahti, J., Ezhova, E., Schallhart, S., Rantala, P., Aliaga, D., Ahonen, L., Sulo, J., Quéléver, L. L. J., Cai, R., Alekseychik, P., Mazon, S. B., Yao, L., M. Blichner, S., Zha, Q., Mammarella, I., Kirkby, J., Kerminen, V.-M., Worsnop, D. R., Kulmala, M., and Bianchi, F.: Potential pre-industrial-like new particle formation induced by pure biogenic organic vapors in Finnish peatland, Sci. Adv., 10, eadm9191, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adm9191,2024.
IPCC: Annex I: Glossary, in: Global Warming of 1.5 °C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, edited by: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, C., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 541–562, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.008, 2022.
Järvi, L., Nordbo, A., Junninen, H., Riikonen, A., Moilanen, J., Nikinmaa, E., and Vesala, T.: Seasonal and annual variation of carbon dioxide surface fluxes in Helsinki, Finland, in 2006–2010, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 8475–8489, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-8475-2012, 2012.
Jia, G., Shevliakova, E., Artaxo, P., Noblet-Ducoudré, N. D., Houghton, R., House, J., Kitajima, K., Lennard, C., Popp, A., Sirin, A., Sukumar, R., and Verchot, L. Land–Climate interactions. In: Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, edited by: Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Calvo Buendia, E., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., van Diemen, R., Ferrat, M., Haughey, E., Luz, S., Neogi, S., Pathak, M., Petzold, J., Portugal Pereira, J., Vyas, P., Huntley, E., Kissick, K., Belkacemi, M., and Malley, J., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 131–248, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.004, 2022.
Junninen, H., Ahonen, L., Bianchi, F., Quéléver, L., Schallhart, S., Dada, L., Manninen, H. E., Leino, K., Lampilahti, J., Buenrostro Mazon, S., Rantala, P., Räty, M., Kontkanen, J., Negri, S., Aliaga, D., Garmash, O., Alekseychik, P., Lipp, H., Tamme, K., Levula, J., Sipilä, M., Ehn, M., Worsnop, D., Zilitinkevich, S., Mammarella, I., Rinne, J., Vesala, T., Petäjä, T., Kerminen, V.-M., and Kulmala, M.: Terpene emissions from boreal wetlands can initiate stronger atmospheric new particle formation than boreal forests, Commun. Earth Environ., 3, 93, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00406-9, 2022.
Kammer, J., Simon, L., Ciuraru, R., Petit, J.-E., Lafouge, F., Buysse, P., Bsaibes, S., Henderson, B., Cristescu, S. M., Durand, B., Fanucci, O., Truong, F., Gros, V., and Loubet, B.: New particle formation at a peri-urban agricultural site, Sci. Total Environ., 857, 159370, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159370, 2023.
Kangur, A., Nigul, K., Padari, A., Kiviste, A., Korjus, H., Laarmann, D., Põldveer, E., Mitt, R., Frelich, L., Jõgiste, K., Stanturf, J., Paluots, T., Kängsepp, V., Jürgenson, H., Noe, S., Sims, A., and Metslaid, M.: Composition of live, dead and downed trees in Järvselja old-growth forest, Forestry Studies/Metsanduslikud Uurimused, 75, 15–40, https://doi.org/10.2478/fsmu-2021-0009, 2021.
Kerminen, V.-M., Chen, X., Vakkari, V., Petäjä, T., Kulmala, M., and Bianchi, F.: Atmospheric new particle formation and growth: review of field observations, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 103003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aadf3c, 2018.
Kiendler-Scharr, A., Wildt, J., Maso, M. D., Hohaus, T., Kleist, E., Mentel, T. F., Tillmann, R., Uerlings, R., Schurr, U., and Wahner, A.: New particle formation in forests inhibited by isoprene emissions, Nature, 461, 381–384, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08292, 2009.
Kulmala, M., Ezhova, E., Kalliokoski, T., Noe, S., Vesala, T., Lohila, A., Liski, J., Makkonen, R., Bäck, J., Petäjä, T., Kerminen, V.-M., and Kerminen, P.: CarbonSink+ – Accounting for multiple climate feedbacks from forests, Boreal Environ. Res., 25, 145–159, 2020.
Kulmala, M., Ke, P., Lintunen, A., Peräkylä, O., Lohtander, A., Tuovinen, S., Lampilahti, J., Kolari, P., Schiestl-Aalto, P., Kokkonen, T., Nieminen, T., Dada, L., Ylivinkka, I., Petäjä, T., Bäck, J., Lohila, A., Heimsch, L., Ezhova, E., and Kerminen, V.-M.: A novel concept for assessing the potential of different boreal ecosystems to mitigate climate change (CarbonSink+ Potential), Boreal Environ. Res., 29, 1–16, 2024.
Mäki, M., Ryhti, K., Fer, I., Ťupek, B., Vestin, P., Roland, M., Lehner, I., Köster, E., Lehtonen, A., Bäck, J., Heinonsalo, J., Pumpanen, J., and Kulmala, L.: Heterotrophic and rhizospheric respiration in coniferous forest soils along a latitudinal gradient, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 317, 108876, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108876, 2022.
Kulmala, L., Pumpanen, J., Kolari, P., Dengel, S., Berninger, F., Köster, K., Matkala, L., Vanhatalo, A., Vesala, T., and Bäck, J.: Inter- and intra-annual dynamics of photosynthesis differ between forest floor vegetation and tree canopy in a subarctic Scots pine stand, Agric. For. Meteorol., 271, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.029, 2019.
Kulmala, M., Suni, T., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Dal Maso, M., Boy, M., Reissell, A., Rannik, Ü., Aalto, P., Keronen, P., Hakola, H., Bäck, J., Hoffmann, T., Vesala, T., and Hari, P.: A new feedback mechanism linking forests, aerosols, and climate, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 557–562, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-557-2004, 2004.
Kulmala, M., Nieminen, T., Nikandrova, A., Lehtipalo, K., Manninen, H., Kajos, M., Kolari, P., Lauri, A., Petaja, T., Krejci, R., Hansson, H.-C., Swietlicki, E., Lindroth, A., Christensen, T. R., Arneth, A., Hari, P., Back, J., Vesala, T., and Kerminen, V.-M.: CO2-induced terrestrial climate feedback mechanism: from carbon sink to aerosol source and back, Boreal Environ. Res., 19, 122–131, 2014.
Laurila, T., Aurela, M., Hatakka, J., Hotanen, J.-P., Jauhiainen, J., Korkiakoski, M., Korpela, L., Koskinen, M., Laiho, R., Lehtonen, A., Alder, K., Linkosalmi, M., Salmon, A., Minkkinen, K., Mäkelä, T., Mäkiranta, P., Nieminen, M., Ojanen, P., Peltoniemi, M., Penttilä, T., Rainne, J., Rautakoski, H., Saarinen, M., Salovaara, P., Sarkkola, S., and Mäkipää, R. : Set-up and instrumentation of the greenhouse gas (GHG) measurements on experimental sites of continuous cover forestry, Natural Resources and Bioeconomy Studies, 26, 1–53, 2021.
Lee, X. and Hu, X.: Forest-air fluxes of carbon, water and energy over non-flat terrain, Bound.-Layer Meteorol., 103, 277–301, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014508928693, 2002.
Mammarella, I., Peltola, O., Nordbo, A., Järvi, L., and Rannik, Ü.: Quantifying the uncertainty of eddy covariance fluxes due to the use of different software packages and combinations of processing steps in two contrasting ecosystems, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 4915–4933, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-4915-2016, 2016.
Manninen, H. E., Mirme, S., Mirme, A., Petäjä, T., and Kulmala, M.: How to reliably detect molecular clusters and nucleation mode particles with Neutral cluster and Air Ion Spectrometer (NAIS), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 3577–3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3577-2016, 2016.
Mathijssen, P. J. H., Tuovinen, J. P., Lohila, A., Väliranta, M., and Tuittila, E. S.: Identifying main uncertainties in estimating past and present radiative forcing of peatlands, Glob. Change Biol., 28, 4069–4084, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16189, 2022.
Mazon, S. B., Kontkanen, J., Manninen, H. E., Nieminen, T., Kerminen, V. M., and Kulmala, M.: A long-term comparison of nighttime cluster events and daytime ion formation in a boreal forest, Boreal Environ. Res., 21, 242–261, 2016.
Mirme, S. and Mirme, A.: The mathematical principles and design of the NAIS – a spectrometer for the measurement of cluster ion and nanometer aerosol size distributions, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 1061–1071, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1061-2013, 2013.
Natural Resources Institute Finland: Natural Resources Data Service, https://www.luke.fi/en/statistics (last access: 25 July 2023), 2022.
Neefjes, I., Laapas, M., Médus, E., Meittunen, E., Ahonen, L., Quéléver, L., Aaltio, J., Bäck, J., Kerminen, V.-M., Lampilahti, J., Luoma, K., Maki, M., Marmmarella, I., Petäjä, T., Räty, M., Sarnela, N., Ylivinkka, I., Hakala, S., Kulmala, M., and Liu, Y.: 25 years of atmospheric and ecosystem measurements in a boreal forest – Seasonal variation and responses to warm and dry years, Boreal Environ. Res., 27, 1–31, 2022.
Nieminen, T., Kerminen, V.-M., Petäjä, T., Aalto, P. P., Arshinov, M., Asmi, E., Baltensperger, U., Beddows, D. C. S., Beukes, J. P., Collins, D., Ding, A., Harrison, R. M., Henzing, B., Hooda, R., Hu, M., Hõrrak, U., Kivekäs, N., Komsaare, K., Krejci, R., Kristensson, A., Laakso, L., Laaksonen, A., Leaitch, W. R., Lihavainen, H., Mihalopoulos, N., Németh, Z., Nie, W., O'Dowd, C., Salma, I., Sellegri, K., Svenningsson, B., Swietlicki, E., Tunved, P., Ulevicius, V., Vakkari, V., Vana, M., Wiedensohler, A., Wu, Z., Virtanen, A., and Kulmala, M.: Global analysis of continental boundary layer new particle formation based on long-term measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14737–14756, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14737-2018, 2018.
Noe, S., Niinemets, Ü., Krasnova, A., Krasnov, D., Motallebi, A., Kängsepp, V., Jõgiste, K., Hõrrak, U., Komsaare, K., Mirme, S., Vana, M., Tammet, H., Bäck, J., Vesala, T., Kulmala, M., Petäjä, T., and Kangur, A.: SMEAR Estonia: Perspectives of a large-scale forest ecosystem– Atmosphere research infrastructure, For. Stud., 63, 56–84, https://doi.org/10.1515/fsmu-2015-0009, 2015.
Olin, M., Okuljar, M., Rissanen, M. P., Kalliokoski, J., Shen, J., Dada, L., Lampimäki, M., Wu, Y., Lohila, A., Duplissy, J., Sipilä, M., Petäjä, T., Kulmala, M., and Dal Maso, M.: Measurement report: Atmospheric new particle formation in a coastal agricultural site explained with binPMF analysis of nitrate CI-APi-TOF spectra, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8097–8115, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8097-2022, 2022.
Peräkylä, O., Rinne, E., Ezhova, E., Lintunen, A., Lohila, A., Aalto, J., Aurela, M., Kolari, P., and Kulmala, M.: Comparison of shortwave radiation dynamics between boreal forest and open peatland pairs in southern and northern Finland, Biogeosciences, 22, 153–179, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-153-2025, 2025.
Petäjä, T., Tabakova, K., Manninen, A., Ezhova, E., O'Connor, E., Moisseev, D., Sinclair, V. A., Backman, J., Levula, J., Luoma, K., Virkkula, A., Paramonov, M., Räty, M., Äijälä, M., Heikkinen, L., Ehn, M., Sipilä, M., Yli-Juuti, T., Virtanen, A., Ritsche, M., Hickmon, N., Pulik, G., Rosenfeld, D., Worsnop, D. R., Bäck, J., Kulmala, M., and Kerminen, V. M.: Influence of biogenic emissions from boreal forests on aerosol–cloud interactions, Nat. Geosci., 15, 42–47, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00876-0, 2022.
Räty, M., Sogacheva, L., Keskinen, H.-M., Kerminen, V.-M., Nieminen, T., Petäjä, T., Ezhova, E., and Kulmala, M.: Dynamics of aerosol, humidity, and clouds in air masses travelling over Fennoscandian boreal forests, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3779–3798, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3779-2023, 2023.
Regnier, P., Resplandy, L., Najjar, R. G., and Ciais, P.: The land-to-ocean loops of the global carbon cycle, Nature, 603, 401–410, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04339-9, 2022.
Ren, J., Chen, L., Fan, T., Liu, J., Jiang, S., and Zhang, F.: The NPF effect on CCN number concentrations: A review and re-evaluation of observations from 35 sites worldwide, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL095190, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095190, 2021.
Rinne, J., Tuittila, E.-S., Peltola, O., Li, X., Raivonen, M., Alekseychik, P., Haapanala, S., Pihlatie, M., Aurela, M., Mammarella, I., and Vesala, T.: Temporal Variation of Ecosystem Scale Methane Emission From a Boreal Fen in Relation to Temperature, Water Table Position, and Carbon Dioxide Fluxes, Global Biogeochem Cy., 32, 1087–1106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017gb005747, 2018.
Rose, C., Zha, Q., Dada, L., Yan, C., Lehtipalo, K., Junninen, H., Mazon, S. B., Jokinen, T., Sarnela, N., Sipilä, M., Petäjä, T., Kerminen, V.-M., Bianchi, F., and Kulmala, M.: Observations of biogenic ion-induced cluster formation in the atmosphere, Science Advances, 4, eaar5218, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar5218, 2018.
Rosenfeld, D., Andreae, M. O., Asmi, A., Chin, M., De Leeuw, G., Donovan, D. P., Kahn, R., Kinne, S., Kivekäs, N., Kulmala, M., Lau, W., Schmidt, K. S., Suni, T., Wagner, T., Wild, M., and Quaas, J.: Global observations of aerosol-cloud-precipitation-climate interactions, Rev. Geophys., 52, 750–808, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013rg000441, 2014.
Roth, F., Broman, E., Sun, X., Bonaglia, S., Nascimento, F., Prytherch, J., Brüchert, V., Lundevall Zara, M., Brunberg, M., Geibel, M. C., Humborg, C., and Norkko, A.: Methane emissions offset atmospheric carbon dioxide uptake in coastal macroalgae, mixed vegetation and sediment ecosystems, Nat. Commun., 14, 42, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35673-9, 2023.
Stolzenburg, D., Cai, R., Blichner, S. M., Kontkanen, J., Zhou, P., Makkonen, R., Kerminen, V.-M., Kulmala, M., Riipinen, I., and Kangasluoma, J.: Atmospheric nanoparticle growth, Rev. Mod. Phys., 95, 045002, https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045002, 2023.
Tammet, H., Komsaare, K., and Hõrrak, U.: Intermediate ions in the atmosphere, Atmos. Res., 135–136, 263–273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.09.009, 2014.
Turunen, J. and Valpola, S.: The influence of anthropogenic land use on Finnish peatland area and carbon stores 1950–2015, Mires and Peat, 1–27, https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2019.GDC.StA.1870, 2020.
Virtasalo, J. J., Österholm, P., and Asmala, E.: Estuarine flocculation dynamics of organic carbon and metals from boreal acid sulfate soils, Biogeosciences, 20, 2883–2901, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2883-2023, 2023.
Tuovinen, S., Lampilahti, J., Kerminen, V.-M., and Kulmala, M.: Intermediate ions as indicator for local new particle formation, Aerosol Research, 2, 93–105, https://doi.org/10.5194/ar-2-93-2024, 2024.
Walker, A. P., De Kauwe, M. G., Bastos, A., Belmecheri, S., Georgiou, K., Keeling, R. F., McMahon, S. M., Medlyn, B. E., Moore, D. J. P., Norby, R. J., Zaehle, S., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Battipaglia, G., Brienen, R. J. W., Cabugao, K. G., Cailleret, M., Campbell, E., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Craig, M. E., Ellsworth, D. S., Farquhar, G. D., Fatichi, S., Fisher, J. B., Frank, D. C., Graven, H., Gu, L., Haverd, V., Heilman, K., Heimann, M., Hungate, B. A., Iversen, C. M., Joos, F., Jiang, M., Keenan, T. F., Knauer, J., Körner, C., Leshyk, V. O., Leuzinger, S., Liu, Y., Macbean, N., Malhi, Y., McVicar, T. R., Penuelas, J., Pongratz, J., Powell, A. S., Riutta, T., Sabot, M. E. B., Schleucher, J., Sitch, S., Smith, W. K., Sulman, B., Taylor, B., Terrer, C., Torn, M. S., Treseder, K. K., Trugman, A. T., Trumbore, S. E., Van Mantgem, P. J., Voelker, S. L., Whelan, M. E., and Zuidema, P. A.: Integrating the evidence for a terrestrial carbon sink caused by increasing atmospheric CO2, New Phytol., 229, 2413–2445, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16866, 2021.
Yi, C. X., Ricciuto, D., Li, R., Wolbeck, J., Xu, X. Y., Nilsson, M., Aires, L., Albertson, J. D., Ammann, C., Arain, M. A., de Araujo, A. C., Aubinet, M., Aurela, M., Barcza, Z., Barr, A., Berbigier, P., Beringer, J., Bernhofer, C., Black, A. T., Bolstad, P. V., Bosveld, F. C., Broadmeadow, M. S. J., Buchmann, N., Burns, S. P., Cellier, P., Chen, J. M., Chen, J. Q., Ciais, P., Clement, R., Cook, B. D., Curtis, P. S., Dail, D. B., Dellwik, E., Delpierre, N., Desai, A. R., Dore, S., Dragoni, D., Drake, B. G., Dufrene, E., Dunn, A., Elbers, J., Eugster, W., Falk, M., Feigenwinter, C., Flanagan, L. B., Foken, T., Frank, J., Fuhrer, J., Gianelle, D., Goldstein, A., Goulden, M., Granier, A., Grünwald, T., Gu, L., Guo, H. Q., Hammerle, A., Han, S. J., Hanan, N. P., Haszpra, L., Heinesch, B., Helfter, C., Hendriks, D., Hutley, L. B., Ibrom, A., Jacobs, C., Johansson, T., Jongen, M., Katul, G., Kiely, G., Klumpp, K., Knohl, A., Kolb, T., Kutsch, W. L., Lafleur, P., Laurila, T., Leuning, R., Lindroth, A., Liu, H. P., Loubet, B., Manca, G., Marek, M., Margolis, H. A., Martin, T. A., Massman, W. J., Matamala, R., Matteucci, G., McCaughey, H., Merbold, L., Meyers, T., Migliavacca, M., Miglietta, F., Misson, L., Moelder, M., Moncrieff, J., Monson, R. K., Montagnani, L., Montes-Helu, M., Moors, E., Moureaux, C., Mukelabai, M. M., Munger, J. W., Myklebust, M., Nagy, Z., Noormets, A., Oechel, W., Oren, R., Pallardy, S. G., Kyaw, T. P. U., Pereira, J. S., Pilegaard, K., Pintér, K., Pio, C., Pita, G., Powell, T. L., Rambal, S., Randerson, J. T., von Randow, C., Rebmann, C., Rinne, J., Rossi, F., Roulet, N., Ryel, R. J., Sagerfors, J., Saigusa, N., Sanz, M. J., Mugnozza, G. S., Schmid, H. P., Seufert, G., Siqueira, M., Soussana, J. F., Starr, G., Sutton, M. A., Tenhunen, J., Tuba, Z., Tuovinen, J. P., Valentini, R., Vogel, C. S., Wang, J. X., Wang, S. Q., Wang, W. G., Welp, L. R., Wen, X. F., Wharton, S., Wilkinson, M., Williams, C. A., Wohlfahrt, G., Yamamoto, S., Yu, G. R., Zampedri, R., Zhao, B., and Zhao, X. Q.: Climate control of terrestrial carbon exchange across biomes and continents, Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 034007, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034007, 2010.
Yli-Juuti, T., Mielonen, T., Heikkinen, L., Arola, A., Ehn, M., Isokääntä, S., Keskinen, H.-M., Kulmala, M., Laakso, A., Lipponen, A., Luoma, K., Mikkonen, S., Nieminen, T., Paasonen, P., Petäjä, T., Romakkaniemi, S., Tonttila, J., Kokkola, H., and Virtanen, A.: Significance of the organic aerosol driven climate feedback in the boreal area, Nat. Commun., 12, 5637, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25850-7, 2021.
Zhang, C., Hai, S., Gao, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, S., Sheng, L., Zhao, B., Wang, S., Jiang, J., Huang, X., Shen, X., Sun, J., Lupascu, A., Shrivastava, M., Fast, J. D., Cheng, W., Guo, X., Chu, M., Ma, N., Hong, J., Wang, Q., Yao, X., and Gao, H.: Substantially positive contributions of new particle formation to cloud condensation nuclei under low supersaturation in China based on numerical model improvements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10713–10730, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10713-2023, 2023.
Zheng, G., Wang, Y., Wood, R., Jensen, M. P., Kuang, C., McCoy, I. L., Matthews, A., Mei, F., Tomlinson, J. M., Shilling, J. E., Zawadowicz, M. A., Crosbie, E., Moore, R., Ziemba, L., Andreae, M. O., and Wang, J.: New particle formation in the remote marine boundary layer, Nat. Commun., 12, 527, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20773-1, 2021.