Description and validation of an intermediate complexity  model for ecosystem photosynthesis and evapotranspiration: ACM-GPP-ETv1

Smallman, Thomas Luke; Williams, Mathew

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2227-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2227-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2227-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 6

Model description paper

|

07 Jun 2019

Model description paper |

| 07 Jun 2019

Description and validation of an intermediate complexity model for ecosystem photosynthesis and evapotranspiration: ACM-GPP-ETv1

Thomas Luke Smallman and Mathew Williams

Download

Final revised paper (published on 07 Jun 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 10 Jan 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Smallman and Williams', Martin De Kauwe, 13 Feb 2019
RC2: 'review of Smallman et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Feb 2019
AC1: 'Author's response to reviewer comments on "Description and validation of an intermediate complexity model for ecosystem photosynthesis and evapo-transpiration: ACM-GPP-ETv1"', Thomas Smallman, 01 May 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Thomas Smallman on behalf of the Authors (01 May 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (13 May 2019) by Christoph Müller

Dear Dr. Smallman and Dr. Williams,

thanks for the thorough revision of your manuscript in response to the reviewers' feedback.
I have now reviewed the paper with great interest and congratulate you on this very nice piece of work.
I'm happy to accept it for publication.
When reading your revised manuscript I found various smaller issues that require quick attention, see list below.

Thanks for submitting to GMD.

Cheers
Christoph

P2 L32: full stop missing
throughout: inconsistent unit style, negative exponents vs. /, e.g. page 10, L3: gC m-2 day-1 vs. L7: gC/m2/day -- please harmonize
P12 L19: has been showN to show
P13 L2: shouldn't this be kgH2O instead of gC? We're talking about water after all and the unit of the target variable MaxSupply is given as kgH2O/m2/day
P16 L11: dominant not dominate?
P16 L14: of THE conductance model?
P16 L17: Sh IS the ...?
equation 77: should this be lR not IR? And should pi be the Greek Letter Pi as in equation 76? Otherwise, please explain symbols.
P19 L3: elsewhere
P22ff: I generally prefer "evaluation" over "validation" as with computer models we are willing to accept errors/deviations from the intended purpose. But I'm also OK with validation as it is often used in this sense...
P22 L16: space missing before Therefore
P22 L26: used to drive?
P23 L14: at sub-daily time scales ...
P23 L18: is that CPU seconds or do these models run on a different number of CPUs? Also: "per simulated day"?
P23 L23: SPA values add up to 103%, so this cannot be a rounding error with just 3 elements?
Figure 5: How come there's a bin for values <0 for site-specific GPP R2 for ACM-GPP-ET (top left panel)? Also, the axis label of the rightmost panel (SPA) is cut off a little bit.
P29 L17: full stop missing
P31 L3: explain GLEAM at first mention
P32 L28: global-scale
P33 L11: delete one of the 2 "Appendix A"
P33 L21: same for Appendix B

Hide

AR by Thomas Smallman on behalf of the Authors (20 May 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

Photosynthesis and evapotranspiration are processes with global significance for climate, carbon and water cycling. Process-orientated simulation of these processes and their interactions have till now come at high computational cost. Here we present a new coupled model of intermediate complexity operating at orders of magnitude greater speed. Independent evaluation at FLUXNET sites for a single, global parameterization shows good agreement, with a typical R² value of ~ 0.60.